Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Tameside

Mr. Pendry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet a deputation from Tameside district council to discuss the 1987–88 urban programme and Tameside's non-inclusion in the programme to date.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, met the leader of Tameside and others on 9 December 1986 to discuss our proposals to direct urban programme resources to the areas of greatest need, which I confirmed at the end of January 1987. My right hon. Friend has recently written to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon) about this same issue.

Mr. Pendry: Notwithstanding that, will the Minister say that he will meet a deputation? If so, when he meets it will he show an element of flexibility and understanding? Since Tameside was excluded from the urban programme, the situation has become worse in my constituency. Some 400 jobs were lost this week, in an area where the unemployment rate is about 30 per cent. If, after those figures, the Minister is still not convinced, will he read the first chapter of a book that was issued this week entitled "Left Behind", written by David Selbourne, who is not a supporter of the Labour party. He paints a dismal picture of my constituency. If the Minister enters those talks with a fair mind, I believe that he will grant the aid that Tameside richly deserves.

Mr. Patten: All the 1987–88 urban programme moneys are now allocated. The hon. Gentleman's constituents saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to discuss this issue, and we saw delegations from other parts of the country. As a result, some changes were made to the list. The consultation process was extremely useful

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister will recall a brief conversation—very brief, I accept—that I had with him in December 1986, and a further conversation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, where I expressed my involvement and intention to seek such a meeting. It is a great pity that the decisions were made before the meeting between the three Members of Parliament and the local authority. Will he reconsider the decision in the light of my representations?

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman is a right hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State would be prepared to see him at any time to discuss these issues. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any changes to the urban programme allocations as already given.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain his decision? Will he accept that on every count of social deprivation Tameside has at least as many problems as the neighbouring authorities of Oldham, Rochdale and Manchester? Surely there is a strong case for bringing aid into Tameside? Do he and his colleagues know where Tameside is? Will he accept that the east side of Manchester has the same problems as are suffered by the surounding towns — declining cotton mills and other problems.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are aware of the socio-economic problems that face boroughs around Tameside, and we know exactly where Tameside is. The unemployment level, discounting the additional 400 job losses that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), remains about the national average. Most areas that are receiving inner urban programme help have average unemployment of around 18 per cent. We are seeking to concentrate help where it is most needed. That process of concentration has been welcomed by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Pendry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Inner City Areas (Housing)

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Seecretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has on the feasibility of building new houses and renovating old property for housing in inner city areas; and what plans he has to fund such housing initiatives.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no doubt about the feasibility of housebuilding in the inner cities—private housebuilders are already building about 12,000 homes a year in these areas.
I shall continue to support housing initiatives in inner city areas by using public money to attract substantial amounts of private investment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Anthony Steen. Oh, we had better have Mr. Hughes first.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for your enthusiastic invitation, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State seen the house price survey by Campaign for Homes in central London which shows that, last year, the average house price in north Southwark was £160,000 Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need is for cheap housing to rent and affordable housing to buy, at about £40,000? As we see on today's tapes that house prices have risen by more than 25 per cent. in London during the past year, can he give an assurance to young couples and others that there will be affordable housing for them in our capital city?

Mr. Ridley: Housing is a local authority responsibility. I keep being urged by the Opposition Front Bench not to


take responsibilities from local government, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to involve me in a local authority problem. There are large numbers of empty council houses in London and other parts of the country. If they wished to, local authorities could use those houses to house people whom they cannot house themselves.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have whetted the appetite of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), but I think that I shall have to call him later. I call Mr. McLoughlin.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the huge number of empty houses in some parts of London, legislation is required to force councils to sell houses on a homesteading basis after they have been empty for six months, thus giving people an opportunity to buy houses at prices that they can afford?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Pawley) introduced a sensible Bill under the ten minutes rule in that regard and I shall be very tempted to support such a Bill if local authorities do not carry out their statutory function to house people in the capital.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the private sector has a great many more empty properties than has the local authority sector, and that the worst offenders are Government Departments, who are the landlords of the highest proportion of vacant property? What action will he take to get his colleagues to put their own house in order?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman invites me to take action on all three fronts. He never knows, I might.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Leicester at the moment there are 947 empty houses of which 77 have been empty for more than one year? Does he agree that even if private investment comes forward, the council is obviously opposed to receiving any help, does not want to build any more council houses and wants to keep tenants in run-down housing? Is that not a disgrace?

Mr. Ridley: It is quite clear that there is no point in building more council houses in areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency where there is already a surplus. If we are as short of land as all hon. Members think and we want to operate a thoroughly restrictive planning policy in the countryside, the consequence must be that we make all available homes available for occupation by people who want them, whether they be in the public or the private sector. That is the only conclusion of a restrictive planning policy.

Dr. Cunningham: May I take up the Secretary of State's suggestion that he would like to act on all three fronts to solve the problems of homelessness — the local government sector, the private sector and where the Government are landlord? If he brings forward comprehensive proposals along those lines, he will have a great deal of support from this side of the House, not least because the growing homelessness in Britain is a social scandal. It is resulting in an economic cost which in 1985–86 in London alone was £26 million for bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The people in such accommodation are getting an appalling deal from the

Government and ratepayers and taxpayers are paying through the nose for it. It is a scandal and the right hon. Gentleman ought to act on it.

Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's apparent last-minute conversion. I look forward to meeting him behind the Speaker's Chair after questions to get his signature on that.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend think that to have masses, or a large proportion, of the nation's wealth tied up in private housing in inner city areas such as London is a fabulous waste of resources? Does he agree that the amount of rented property available has been reduced from about 40 per cent. of what used to be available to under 10 per cent., and that unless and until he bites the bullet and decides to abolish rent control, that position will continue in inner city areas such as London for years to come?

Mr. Ridley: The private rented sector has declined from about 6 million to about 1·5 million homes. We cannot afford that loss of accommodation if we are to house all those people who are looking for housing. My hon. Friend makes a point upon which I hope we shall come to have unanimity in the House so that we can tackle the problems about which this question asks.

Council House Waiting Lists

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the total number of people on the waiting lists for rented council houses of all types at the end of 1986, together with the numbers for each of the 10 largest cities.

Mr. Ridley: Criteria for including people on waiting lists differ from council to council, but English authorities reported that 1·35 million households were on their lists in April 1986. I am placing the figures for the 10 largest authorities in the Library.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State remember that an answer to a question from me a few weeks ago about how many council houses the Government have allowed to be built, showed that the number was 74,000 in 1979 and steadily dropped to only 19,000 last year? The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is a waiting list of, I think, 1·3 million and has said that he will give the actual figures for the 10 largest cities later. There is a massive queue of people and homelessness all over the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. It is insufficient to say that there are plenty of empty houses. Why are the Government not allowing houses to be built not only to provide employment but to provide homes for those who need them?

Mr. Ridley: The waiting list is a notoriously bad measurement of housing need. Many people who are on a list are already housed or just want a transfer. Some are on more than one list, and some apply for council housing as an insurance in case their preferred housing plans fall through. In Sheffield there are currently 8,750 empty houses, 5,500 of them in the private sector and the rest public housing. It makes no sense for the hon. Gentleman to advocate a massive house building programme when there are 8,750 empty houses in his city.

Sir George Young: Would not the number on the waiting lists in London be reduced if the accommodation


that many people were offered was in slightly better condition? What has been the response to my right hon. Friend's Departments' generous offer to local authorities in London for extra funds from his Department to bring back into better use some of the grotty estates in the inner London area?

Mr. Ridley: The estate action programme has received greatly increased resources —£75 million next year—to bring much-needed funds for the repair of the worst council estates, wherever they may be. I regret bitterly to have to tell the House that Brent and Lambeth have refused assistance from that source for the homeless. I hope that all local authorities, including those in London, will avail themselves of the help that the Government have brought.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State investigate the scandalous position that is developing in my constituency in the Rothwell area of Leeds where British Coal has just released an estate where the houses were empty for five years? The houses are now defective and British Coal refused to sell them to tenants. Now they have been sold to a private operator who is asking five times the previous rent but has carried out no structural strengthening of the houses. They are defective. Something should be done to ensure that this racket does not continue. Will the Secretary of State investigate the scandalous position that has developed in my constituency.

Mr. Ridley: I am always happy to investigate any problem which is brought to my attention. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to know about that matter before I have had a chance to study it. On the general question on British Coal houses, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and I have written to all right hon. and hon. Members who have raised the problem and have explained the present position, and I think that that has satisfied them.

Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour councils in the north-east have some 10,000 empty council houses ready for occupation now and have had for some five years? Will my right hon. Friend be a little more radical and bring forward legislation to allow the homeless to homestead in houses that are difficult to let?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. It is possible for local authorities in housing stress areas to take on empty houses which are ready and available in other parts of the country to house the people whom those authorities cannot house. If local authorities are not going to get their housing act together and house those people and to use their massive resources, I agree with my hon. Friend that more drastic measures will have to be taken in the interests of the homeless.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Secretary of State stop giving us what is called in the pop record industry a remix of alibis, excuses and gimmicks? Will he admit that the number of homes built to rent last year by local authorities was the lowest in 62 years, that the housing investment programme net of capital receipts was the lowest in real terms since HIPs were invented and that, even during the past three years the number of repair and improvement grants, which would bring some private homes back into use, have dropped by 100,000? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if the private owner and the

local authority are starved of resources, we are left with lengthy queues, homelessness and all the other scandals of poor housing that exist today?

Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are about 760,000 more homes than there are households? What is the point in the hon. Gentleman getting up day after day and advocating massive council house building when there is a surplus of council housing in many parts of the country? There is a problem in London, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that there is not overall a national problem.

Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could bring into use a majority of the 113,000 empty council houses and flats, it would have a dramatic impact on council house waiting lists? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could bring into use private sector properties that are at present underused or unused and which are available, but which the landlord is unwilling to let because of the Rent Acts, we would be able to solve the problem completely?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Audit Commission estimates that, with streamlined letting procedures, a further 20,000 local authority dwellings could be made available in London. That would be another massive increase in the available stock. Inefficiency in the letting procedures is another reason why there is a housing shortage in London. I repeat: we must tackle the misuse of existing housing stock before we go into the expensive idea of building lots of new houses because we cannot be bothered to let the old ones properly.

Homeless Persons

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the availability of hostel accommodation for the homeless.

Mr. John Patten: Finding accommodation for homeless people is primarily the responsibility of local authorities under part III of the Housing Act 1985. The Government are, however, assisting the provision of temporary hostel places for the homeless in various ways, including in particular the widely welcomed new provision through the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Alton: Given that, in reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State queried the use of waiting lists as a guide to the number of homeless people, will he dispute the figures provided by Shelter that show that up to 100,000 people will present themselves as homeless this year, and that, by summer, no temporary hostel accommodation will be available for homeless people in London? As the Minister just said that he thinks that more temporary accommodation should be made available, what will he do about it? Does he agree that the problem has been compounded by encouraging young people to become a nation of Dick Whittingtons, to leave the great northern cities, to travel to London and find that the streets are not paved with jobs? They end up living in cardboard cities in conditions that are nothing but undignified.

Mr. Patten: We recently announced the funding of a major programme of analysis into the causes of homelessness by the Birmingham university centre for urban and regional studies. It has been widely welcomed by all lobbying bodies involved, including Shelter. That


programme will help to shed some light on the first of the four questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I shall make a couple of other observations on his other questions if I may.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Patten: I shall not, in that case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should answer, but I ask for single questions, otherwise it is unfair to other hon. Members.

Mr. Patten: That is precisely why I asked for your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer the last three questions. I did not want to see any unfairness to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that in his own area of Liverpool there is no need for anyone to be homeless because there are about 8,000 empty council properties in Liverpool alone.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the best way to solve the problem of homelessness is not to provide more hostel accommodation—to take up points raised earlier during Question Time — but to bring about amendments to the rent legislation to bring on to the market the private rented units that are currently available but which private landlords cannot afford to put on to the market, and to bring forward public accommodation in the ownership of local authorities which, with rehabilitation, could he made available? Therefore, will he make more money available for the rehabilitation of public housing and amend the rent legislation?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has given us a lot of food for thought. The private rented sector could provide considerable amounts of accommodation through refurbishment to house the homeless. It is exactly co-operation with the private sector, through the Housing Corporation to which we are looking to try to fund additional temporary hostels for the homeless which will be so important in placing people in permanent accommodation.

Mr. Rooker: I reiterate to the Minister the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that if he comprehensively operates in all three areas, we shall do all that we can to facilitate the matter. It is a scandal. Does it worry him that there have been press reports in the past couple of weeks that 40-bedroom hotels in London which changed hands for £750,000 three years ago, are now changing hands for several millions of pounds. It means that the owners can clean up at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer by using three hotels for bed and breakfast accommodation? The Minister cannot ignore that scandal any longer.

Mr. Patten: It is precisley for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made available to the Housing Corporation enough money to bring in between £50 million and £70 million of investment in hostel accommodation, largely in London, which will make the use of bed and breakfast accommodation unnecessary. That is precisely my right hon. Friend's policy.

Community Charge

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the likely collection costs of the proposed community charge for England and Wales.

The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We have received a number of representations about the operation of the community charge, including the cost of collection.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic rates are a fair way of financing genuinely local services if other items of expenditure such as education are taken out and funded by central taxation? Therefore, will my hon. Friend be cautious before he introduces a community charge, with its rebates, exemptions and collection difficulties?

Dr. Boyson: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said, but there is an overwhelming feeling about rates being unfair to many residents. The great advantage of the community charge is that everybody who is voting is paying something towards the cost, whereas in Lambeth and Liverpool, where there are nonsensical councils, only one voter in five pays anything.

Mr. Park: Will the Minister now answer the question? What are the likely collection costs of the community charge?

Dr. Boyson: We referred to that question in the Green Paper. It is likely that the cost will be double the cost of the collection of rates. However, when people realise that local authorities are spending their money, I believe that local authorities will be much more careful about how they spend that money. There is no doubt that this is one of the best financial bargains for this country.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend not accept that some very reputable organisations have suggested that the nature of the charge is such that many people who may be assessed will none the less avoid payment, particularly in the inner city areas where they will stay in one place for a mere two or three months? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it will be possible to recover the community charge as easily as rates?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's question so that I can take further the educational course of Opposition Members on the community charge. It is not an annual charge; it is a monthly charge. Most people do not move every month. Some people do not move every year. The head of each household has to list the people who are living in the house and the local authority then has to collect the community charge. I have no doubt that this can be done.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of the community charge in England, particularly in west Cumbria, will massively increase the amount of money that is paid for what, in effect, is only a substitute for rates? Is he aware that if one compares the figures with those for Scotland, the substitute rate payments by people in Maryport, Workington and other towns of west Cumbria will double and in many cases will triple? Is that what the Government call fairness in local taxation?

Dr. Boyson: I do not quite follow all the hon. Gentleman's comments, or where his figures come from.


If a local authority is spending £2 million a year and raises a proportion of that sum from the rates, it will raise a quarter of its expenditure from the community charge, and that will be the equivalent of the rate income. If the local authority is more careful about its expenditure, the amount that is levied will be less. By spreading this cost more widely many people, including the old-age pensioner and the one-parent family — about whom we have "bleeding hearts" stories from Opposition Members all the time—will be better off than they are under the present system. [Interruption.] They will be considerably better off. They will pay only one charge. If they are living in a house with two or three bedrooms, they will be paying two or three times more than that. Those are the mathematics of it.

Mr. Marland: As my hon. Friend is aware, Gloucestershire county council is now under alliance control. Is he aware that for the second year running it has voted for substantial rate increases? Will he introduce the community charge as soon as possible to stop the alliance squandering other people's money?

Dr. Boyson: I believe that the expenditure increase in Gloucestershire over two years is about 41 per cent. That council is under alliance control. Therefore I welcome my hon. Friend's question. We presume that when there is a wider spread of the community charge, fewer people in Gloucestershire will be under alliance control.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition are very grateful to him for his admission, for the first time, that the cost of collecting this bureaucratic poll tax will be double the cost of collecting rates in the long term? Will he confirm the estimate of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy that, in the interim, the cost of collection will be four times the cost of rates? Will he also confirm that his own consultative document on the poll tax says that there will be Orwellian checks on residents before they can use local services? Why did the Minister seek just now to mislead the House as to the burden on one-parent families and old-age pensioners? Is he not aware that at the moment old-age pensioners and one-parent families pay nothing towards the rates but that under this poll tax proposal they will pay a substantial amount?

Dr. Boyson: It is very difficult to catch up with all the questions that have been asked. There has been no attempt to mislead. The Green Paper gave the figures. The position is the same as in Scotland: it will be about twice the present cost. The basis of the community charge is to ensure that those who are using the services are paying something towards the cost of those services. That will end the nonsense from the hard Left in so many councils in London.

Mr. Rathbone: Whatever the advantages in budgetary terms or in terms of local government finance, would not my hon. Friend accept that there are strong electoral disadvantages in bringing into taxation people who are as yet not in taxation by spreading that sort of tax across the whole population in the way that the Government plan?

Dr. Boyson: I do not go along with my hon Friend's view. I am working through my mind exactly what he is saying. My own view, and the view of the Government of which I am part, is quite clear. One of the problems around the country now is that a smaller and smaller proportion

of those who vote are voting to spend other people's money. In places such as Manchester and Liverpool only two out of every nine are paying. The other seven are voting to spend the money of those two. That is why there is nonsense expenditure and nonsense in the councils there.

Land Use (Circular)

Mr. Andy Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet members of the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss the draft circular on planning and agricultural land.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about his new draft planning circular; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from the Countryside Commission to his draft circular on planning and agricultural land.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Countryside Commission welcomed the draft planning circular in a press release of 11 February; the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council welcomed the package of measures, including the extension of environmentally sensitive areas and farm, forestry, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced at the same time. The formal consultation period on the circular continues until 10 April.

Mr. Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Will he say that, when he meets the Nature Conservancy Council, he will reassure it that there will be no change in the Government's green belt policy?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. My right hon. Friend and I have been making that crystal clear in recent days to the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and anybody else who may ask. Since the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is present in the Chamber, I should say that I have seen another report today in the Daily Telegraph saying
Labour will build in Green Belt.
My hon. Friend should be addressing his question to the Opposition, who are clearly proposing encroachment on the green belt.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that overdevelopment is the overriding political concern of most of my constituents, certainly, most of those who live in south-east Dorset? Is he aware that the test of the Government's intention will not be speeches and ministerial directives, welcome as they are, from my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but the contents of the circular? Will he give an assurance that the changed policy will provide unequivocal legal guidance to inspectors in his Department to give environmental consideration the highest priority when determining appeals?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. I am delighted to reassure my hon. Friend, who has a great interest in these matters, that my right hon. Friend's draft circular says, for the first time, that the overriding privilege given to agricultural land as productive agricultural land now has to be replaced by a balance between the needs of the economy and the needs of the environment itself. Surely, in modern times, that is


the correct balance. It is difficult to deal with such casually, badly edited and misleading comments as were heard, for example, on the introduction to the Nick Ross phone-in on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, which was a completely misleading and shoddy account.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the circular will be regarded as a major step forward, particularly in rural areas? For the first time it establishes the primacy of the environment, which will do a great deal to reassure small companies and businesses that are being set up in some of our rural areas, specifically within former farm buildings that are no longer required.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. His point of view is echoed by the chairman of the Countryside Commission, who made the same point in a press release. We have to look at the economic health of the villages and small towns and at the conservation of the environment. That is the balance we need to keep.

Mr. Hardy: Since the principal motivator of change was supposed to be the agriculture surplus, particularly the cereal surplus, will the Minister discuss with the Nature Conservancy Council the weakness in the Government's position, which is demonstrated by their apparently complete disregard of grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural areas, where the surplus is produced, and where the landscape features and hedgerows have been largely obliterated?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has completely changed the whole grant structure in those regions. Grants can now be obtained, for example, for the replacement of traditional hedgerows and so forth. My right hon. Friend is now developing schemes for the planting of farm woodlands. Those proposals must be welcomed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Livsey: When will the Minister be able to make a more detailed statement on agricultural land and planning? What is he doing to safeguard the position of county structure plans?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the procedure. Under the procedure, a draft circular is produced for comment. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read the draft circular he will find all the detail that he needs and perhaps he might then like to comment on it.

Dr. David Clark: In his discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council on the proposed draft circular, will the Minister take the opportunity to raise the threat to the site of special scientific interest in the Black Mountains which is currently threatened by the spraying of herbicides? Does that not prove the point that it is more important to get our present land use system in operation correctly rather than to rush ahead recklessly with further threats to the countryside?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's point is a long way from the draft planning circular. However, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 proper procedures are in place for the protection of SSSIs, which I know that the hon. Gentleman supports. There is no question of our recklessly charging ahead. The hon. Gentleman would be

rightly critical of the Government if, against the changes in the agricultural needs in the country, we did not bring forward sensible policies for alternative land use and for the health of the rural communities. He would be right to criticise us if we did not do that.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Norwich health authority has turned down four possible sites for the new hospital on the grounds that the sites are of high agricultural value? Is that not an absurdity?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is impossible for me to comment on a particular application from the Dispatch Box. However, the point of my right hon. Friend's draft circular is that we must now balance the needs of the environment for its own sake against the needs for particular development and not give overriding and automatic privileges to agricultural production.

Bathing Beaches

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his announcement of 3 February in respect of new bathing beach designations.

Mr. William Waldegrave: There has been a generally favourable response from water authorities, the press and interested parties.

Mrs. Clwyd: As the Minister knows, many of the beaches are filthy and do not conform to EEC standards. What is the estimated cost of bringing them up to EEC standards? Are the Government to make the money available and if so, when?

Mr. Waldegrave: First, the water authorities are self-financing and this must be something for water consumers to pay in their charges. The hon. Lady has asked about the time scale. We have just less than £300 million in the programme until 1990. I suspect that if we continue to spend at about that rate the programme will be finished towards the end of the century. That is a reasonable spreading of the programme so that there is not too much burden on water consumers in the short term.

Mr. Steen: Although the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) may not be aware of this, three of the most beautiful beaches in the west country are in South Hams. They are also the most heavily polluted, because raw sewage comes straight out of a pipe that was built before the war right under the beach. Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on that because it is seriously affecting tourism and the South-West water authority has said that it can do nothing about it?

Mr. Waldegrave: I was aware of that, as my hon. Friend constantly tells me about the beauty of the South Hams beaches. He has made a serious point about the resources involved and that must be for discussion within the context of the corporate plans of the various water authorities. It is worth my hon. Friend remembering that we have just now managed to restore the real terms cuts made by the Labour Government when the country surrendered control of its investment programmes to the IMF in 1976. We have just got back in real terms to the investment level of 1976.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I am looking forward very much to fighting the hon.


Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on those beaches, and that the House is glad to see the hon. Gentleman here more than it used to?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has already started his campaign, using some of the effluent matter, which is probably how he will continue.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales depends a great deal on tourism? Since about 20 million British people will be taking their holidays abroad, is it not imperative to spend more cash to ensure that Welsh beaches are up to European standard, so that we can attract more tourism to the Principality?

Mr. Waldegrave: Indeed. I paid a very enjoyable visit to my hon. Friend's constituency last week and the point was made about the importance of tourism and of the beaches to tourism. The programme is steadily under way. Often, the investment is big, takes a long time and must secure planning permission; it cannot just be rushed through. A solid programme is under way.

Mr. Hancock: Does the Minister recognise that many water authorities are totally inadequately funded and do not have the resources, and that to wait until the next century to clean up those beaches is an indictment of the Government? Will he consider giving resources to improve the south coast beaches, especially in south Hampshire? Would it not be more appropriate to give some of that money to local authorities to do it now rather than to wait? Will the Minister confirm that his Department will consider the problem seriously and will not leave the under-funded water authorities to deal with it?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has got it a bit back to front. Southern Water was one of the water authorities which most strongly welcomed my recent announcement on this. Resources cannot be conjured up magically. This must be paid for by someone, and there must be a reasonable programme so that it does not cost too much in the short term. They are often big investment projects that cannot be conjured out of the air.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister really telling the people of Britain that they have to swim in raw or macerated sewage until the end of this century? The World Health Organisation. the European Community and the United States Environment Protection Agency have said that there is a potential health risk in swimming in sea water contaminated by raw sewage. Why do the Government continually ignore the standards that they have set? How can the Minister take such a negative, uncaring, irresponsible and parsimonious attitude? It is no wonder that the EC is taking the Government to court over their attitude.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have fallen victim to understatement in this matter. The truth is that well before the end of this century, all our principal beaches will be clean. More than half of our 380 bathing beaches already meet European and World Health Organisation standards. There is no health risk, and the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House by using such scare tactics.

Homelessness

Mr. Patchett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of homeless persons in England.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homeless single people in London; and how many of these are estimated to be sleeping rough.

Mr. Ridley: In the year ending 30 September 1986, local authorities in England accepted responsibility for 101,280 formerly homeless households, and found them accommodation.
I am concerned that a number of people are sleeping rough in London. But as they do not qualify under the homelessness legislation, there are no soundly based figures on their numbers, nor on the number of homeless single people.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the lining of the pockets of landlords and hoteliers is not the answer to this problem? Does he not think that it would be better to give the money to local authorities to build homes? does he recognise that the Government's policies on the homeless merely exacerbate the problem?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got it right. Half of those who are accepted as homeless are put into permanent local authority housing immediately. For the rest, a very large amount of empty local authority housing could be used if only authorities would manage it efficiently. I agree that there is a problem while people who are accepted as homeless must be put into temporary accommodation until permanent accommodation can be found. We have produced extra resources for the Housing Corporation to try to assist in the stress areas.

Mr. Dubs: May I put it to the Secretary of State that in London many single people can neither afford to buy nor to pay private sector rents and that as they are being completely missed out by local authorities, especially by Tory-controlled Wandsworth, they have no alternative but to sleep rough or to find somebody else's floor to sleep on? Is it right that a whole generation of single people should be left out of the housing market altogether, with no prospects for the future?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that most such people would be eligible for housing benefit, so it is not a question of not being able to afford the rent. He also knows that, as I have said, there are about 750,000 more houses in this country than there are households.

Mr. Dubs: Not in London.

Mr. Ridley: It may conceivably be a good idea for such people to go to somewhere where there is a home, rather than to sleep rough in London.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole problem started with the well-intentioned private Member's Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, in which it was visualised that we could provide homes for everyone who cared to move to another area? Has that not created a vast problem? Does he have in mind any way in which that Act could be reviewed because it promises too much and creates terrible problems for local authorities, especially in the south?

Mr. Ridley: I do not think that any quarter of the House feels that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act should be repealed. It makes it clear that it is those who have a local residence qualification to whom the local authority has an obligation, if they are accepted as


homeless. However, there is a great deal of acceptance of people who do not have the proper residence qualification and that is making the problem worse in those scarcity areas.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments are absolutely right and that in Ealing the 50 homeless families on the list which the new hard-left council inherited from the previous Conservative council last May at a cost of £300,000 a year have now been swamped by 500, who have been drawn on to the list by the abolition of residence points? That means that local people have no chance at all and that people are sucked on to the list from all over the country and the world. That list is expected to number 1,000 next May, at a cost of £5 million. Is that not ridiculous?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend's figures are correct, although I have no confirmation of them here. May I add that if such councils spent less money on nonsensical and irresponsible things — heavens knows they are charging high enough rates—they could afford to house their own people. They should stop wasting money on nuclear-free zones, gays and lesbians and such things.

Dr. Cunningham: Can we have less of the crass and insensitive stupidity of the Secretary of State for the Environment? Should people who are without work take the advice of the chairman of the Conservative party and go looking for jobs, or take his advice and go elsewhere looking for homes? Are the Government so incompetent that they cannot give people decent houses and the opportunity of a job?

Mr. Ridley: It is crass and incompetent of the hon. Gentleman not to realise that it is better to find a home where one is empty, than to sleep out on the pavement if one does not have to. Housing is the responsibility of councils. In London, where the Labour party is running so many councils inefficiently, the Audit Commission has stated that about £20 million a year is wasted on totally frivolous national issues and spending of the sort that I have mentioned. That £20 million a year would easily solve the problem of London's homeless if those councils got their priorities right.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Secretary of State accept that no Member of this House wants to keep a single house empty for a moment longer than is necessary, but that that will not necessarily do much to help the problem of homelessness? In the borough of Tower Hamlets the officers estimate that one fifth of the amount that is allowed under rate capping must be spent on the homeless, because of the mismatch of the empty properties with the needs of the homeless.

Mr. Ridley: Why does the borough of Tower Hamlets have six mini town halls, six town clerks, six sets of administrators, and six lots of bureaucrats? If it had spent all that money on housing the homeless, it might have got somewhere.

New Building

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of new building took place on recycled or derelict land in 1986; and what is his Department's estimate as to whether that proportion will rise or fall.

Mr. Ridley: In 1985, the most recent year for which figures are available, 47 per cent. of land used for development had previously been developed or was vacant land in urban areas. I hope that that proportion will remain substantial.

Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be far less pressure for development on greenfield sites in my constituency and elsewhere if more derelict land in inner cities is brought to market? Has he thought of introducing some sort of land value taxation which would encourage this land to be brought to market as soon as possible?

Mr. Ridley: I agree. The figure of 47 per cent. is by far the best that we have ever achieved and I hope that it will get better still. Rather than tax unused, derelict land in inner cities, the Government are subsidising it. It is being brought back into use through the derelict land grant, the urban programme and now the urban development corporations in the relevant areas. We are much more likely to get a quick and ready take-up of, and useful employment for, that land if we make it available in good condition and cheaply rather than if we simply tax it.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Secretary of State think that it is as unrealistic to claim that all inner city derelict sites should be built on as it would be to say that all new build should be on greenfield sites? When he approves derelict land grants will he bear in mind that in my constituency builders were forced by a scarcity of land to consider digging 10 acres of tipped waste which was 15-years-old —no one knew what was there—with massive potential environmental damage? They have pulled back from that, but builders and developers should not be placed in that position. That is why the matter must be considered with greater sensitivity.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In some parts of the northern industrial areas where, unfortunately, there is a massive decline in population, there will be room for increased green space above what there has been previously. I have asked the new urban development corporations to take that into account where they can do so. In some of the bustling, overcrowded cities of the south it will not be easy to accommodate all the people whom we have been talking about at Question Time today and to provide increased green space.

Estuaries (Conservation)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will establish a register of the current development proposals which affect conservation interests in the estuaries of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir. My Department is aware of a number of proposals, some of which would seem to have major impacts on ecologically important estuaries; others less so. Each individual proposal would have to be assessed on its merits at the time.

Mr. Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that our estuaries are threatened by development as never before? Does he accept that 90 per cent. of the birds that overwinter here do so in 37 estuaries and that most of those 37 estuaries are now subject to development proposals? In view of that


massive threat to wildlife in our estuaries and because of our duties under the Ramsar convention will he undertake an urgent review?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind because what he says is important and true and many proposals seem to be coming forward at present. Some do not have such dire effects as my hon. Friend suggests, but others are serious. It is open to an inspector or a planning committee to consider the cumulative effect of the developments and it is important that they do so in due course.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that one development on the Mersey estuary involves a sewage plant which will, for the first time, take raw sewage from the Liverpool area and treat it so that it is not pushed into the Mersey? That treatment is only a primary treatment, so that solids do not go on to Blackpool beach, but other pollutants will. If the water authorities are self-financing, as the Minister said earlier, will he release them from public sector borrowing requirement restrictions and allow them to borrow the money to do the job properly, so that when Mr. and Mrs. Ramsbottom do not take Albert to the zoo, where he would be eaten by a lion, but take him instead to swim on the beach, he will not get poisoned by pollution?

Mr. Waldegrave: At Question Time today we have already considered the brass neck that is necessary for the Labour party to talk about investment in the water industry because it slashed the industry to pieces. I am sure that the scheme which the North-West water authority is introducing will have proper environmental consequences and will be properly designed.

London Marathon (County Hall)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had about the continued use of county hall for the London marathon.

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport met a delegation of hon. Members and the race director, led by the hon. Member on 14 July last year.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that if the marathon organisers are prevented from using county hall, the finishing line for the race will have to be switched and, in terms of participation, the event will be downgraded from its international status? Will the Minister use his influence with the London residuary body to try to ensure that any future occupant of county hall agrees to give the marathon organisers the continued use of county hall for just one weekend in the year?

Dr. Boyson: I know that many hon. Members feel strongly about the marathon finish remaining at the building erstwhile called county hall. We have no locus in this matter, but we have spoken to the residuary body and it will speak to any prospective buyers pointing out the advantage of the marathon continuing to end at county hall because of the nearness of Westminster bridge and Big Ben and because of the publicity that finishing spot brings and will continue to bring to anybody who buys county hall.

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Harrison: I want to speak on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: Bad luck.

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Question Time ends at 3.30 and that it is now 3.31.

Written Answers

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known in the House that written answers are getting printed in Hansard a little late at the moment. There is a backlog and they are often up to two days behind. This has concerned quite a lot of hon. Members throughout the House, but one of the things that has puzzled me of late is the fact that certain answers are able to appear in Hansard ahead of the sequence of written answers.
I take for example the issue of Hansard dated Wednesday, 25 February. The written answers in that issue are dated 23 February, but at the end of them there is one page on which there appears one answer from the Secretary of State for Education and Science announcing the membership of a committee which appears to me to be an inspired question. It gets the full-page treatment and will be printed, no doubt, again at a later date. I understand the practice is that it will be subsequently printed at a later date.
The same thing occurs in the issue of 4 February, where again the answers are for 3 February except for one, a reply from the Minister of Transport, which again is a lengthy statement which is singled out and printed ahead of the other answers.
I took this up with the Editor of the Official Report and, after explaining at some length the problems that he believes are causing the delay of written answers in general, he says that the question and answer I referred to
were printed out of sequence because I have instructed that 'topical' questions resulting in 'policy' statements should be given priority, that being intended to be generally convenient.
Who decides which is a policy statement which should have this topical treatment? Does it not open up the possibility that those answers which the Government wish to be seen are printed on the day in question, particularly those to which they wish to attach press releases and circulate around, whereas those which the Government would find embarrassing are buried two or three days later in the written answers?
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that it is envisaged that all hon. Members should have access to this procedure and should be able to say, "My question is extremely topical and the statement, or the reply that it will evoke is an important matter of policy". If there is to be such a procedure could we all know what it is and be quite sure that it is not accessible to the Government alone?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member raises an important matter. I was not aware of the matter, but I shall certainly look into it and communicate with him.

Taxis (Members' Entrance)

Mr. Eric Heffer: I should like to ask for your guidance and assistance, Mr. Speaker. The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) has issued its report on minutes of proceedings for Tuesday, 17 February 1987. In that report item 3 relates to, "Taxis at Members' Entrance".
It states:
That the privilege of queueing for taxis at Members' Entrance should be restricted to Members, Peers, Officers of the House and the spouses of Members and Peers if accompanied by the Member or Peer in question".
That means the end of the practice that has been accepted in this House ever since I have been here—that staff other than Officers of the House and Members, have the right to queue and that journalists and other people have the right to queue. I am asking for an opportunity to discuss this pompous asses' decision, because that is what it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that such an experienced hon. Gentleman should call other Members of the House, who are members of the Select Committee, pompous asses. I hope that he will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Heffer: If I am not allowed to call them pompous asses, I shall not. Without consulting the trade unions, hon. Members or anyone else, the Select Committee has arrived at a decision that, frankly, is absolutely ridiculous. I want to know when and how we can discuss the matter and what we can do to change this absolutely ridiculous decision.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this. The Leader of the House has heard his question today. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye tomorrow, he may put his question to the Leader of the House, who doubtless will by then have had time to think of a response.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 MARCH 1987

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Iain Mills
Mr. Michael Foot
Mr. William Shelton

IMMIGRATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY)

Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Moore and Mr. David Waddington, presented a Bill to require carriers to make payments to the Secretary of State in respect of passengers brought by them to the United Kingdom without proper documents: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 97].

Disabled Persons' Rights

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people on the grounds of their disability.
Since I introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill over three years ago there has been more irrefutable evidence of widespread discrimination against disabled people. A number of reports have given further witness to the problem. Two years ago there was the report of the British Deaf Association, and in the summer of last year the Spastics Society report, "An equal chance for disabled people : A study of discrimination in employment", gave hard statistical evidence of the disadvantages faced by handicapped people in the labour market. Incidentally, it should be noted that in the Official Report of yesterday—column 721—the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that in 1985 the unemployment rate among those whose work would be limited by disability was 23·4 per cent. That is over double the rate of 10·6 per cent. for all other persons.
I was pleased to see today in a news release from the Spastics Society that it is giving full endorsement to my Bill. I have the overwhelming support of the public and of disabled people's organisations. In response to the report of the Government-sponsored National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, the Spastics Society stated :
The fundamental justification for helping disabled people lies in their right to real equality of opportunity, which at a minimum means ending direct and indirect discrimination…The Society is very disappointed that the report has not chosen to look at the problem in terms of these more fundamental concepts and can only assume that this arises from opposition to anti-discrimination legislation.
That Government's opposition has been maintained despite an increasing amount of anecdotal evidence. I can name a few instances over the past few years. The football teams of my city have come to regard Wembley as their home. It is always difficult to get a cup final ticket, and usually when somebody receives one, he rejoices. However, a number of disabled constituents in Liverpool have been faced with another problem, that of being unable to gain access to Wembley. For them the problem is not just getting the ticket but having to go to Members of Parliament to press that they be able to use that ticket equally with other fans.
Recently, an American company advertised for 37 workers for various jobs in Portmadoc in Wales. The Cambrian News of 15 August 1986 carried the advertisement which, among other things, said:
All persons applying must … have no physical disability.
I had a letter only yesterday from a young lady who is 23 years of age and lives in Runcorn and who suffers from a congenital deformity and ataxia-type cerebral palsy. According to her letter, it affects her very mildly, and it is worth listening to what she says:
I walk unaided if a little slow and unsteady, I can manage stairs and drive my own automatic car … I am proficient at typewriting, and plan to use a micro-writer for written note-taking in court … I take no medication at all … I have never attended a 'special' school, I achieved an upper second class degree in Sociology and Psychology from Lancaster University in 1985 … I spent ten months as a Community Service Volunteer working full time and living in

Southwood Probation Hostel in Liverpool, where I took part in every aspect of residential work without any problems at all—indeed I loved the work. I left the Hostel to take up the full-time post of Volunteer Co-ordinator at Halton General Hospital".
That young lady was accepted for a course next September at Nottingham university to study for a certificate of qualification in social work, but so that she could go on from there into the probation service, she needed to be sponsored by the Home Office. The Home Office has turned her down on what it calls medical grounds after a perfunctory 15-minute medical. That is atrocious. It displays the sort of discrimination which I tried to eradicate in my Bill three years ago.
My Bill would apply not only to employment. serious as that is, but to all aspects of life, including education, housing, recreation, insurance, transport and membership of associations where one sees ample evidence of discrimination. The Bill would give basic human rights to all those who are disabled, whether physically, mentally or sensorily, and it would be reinforced by a commission, which would be able to tackle some of the problems on their behalf and which would include representatives of the disabled. Problems such as the pedestrianisation of many of our shopping areas in the city centres make no-go areas for many of our disabled citizens. That needs to be tackled.
When refuting the need for legislation, the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), put the Government's emphasis on
bringing about an increased understanding of disabled people's needs and promoting a spirit of positive co-operation in dealing with them. That approach has manifestly paid off." —[Official Report, 18 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 1126.]
Tell that to the disabled football fans. Tell that to the disabled people who are looking for work in Portmadoc. Tell that to the young lady in Runcorn.
This is the fourth attempt in four years to get anti-discrimination legislation, and my second attempt. The Bill has wide support. It is time that we changed the legislation, because so far the Government have treated the disabled shabbily in terms of discrimination. They have sought to hide behind the cloak of manoeuvre and procedure. They used the closure to defeat the measure last time. In the other place they have voted on Second Reading of a Bill such as this. This is an opportunity for the Government to stand up and be counted. They cannot hide behind the closure on a ten-minute rule Bill. I call for the wholehearted support of decent people and I say to the Tories that people of conscience—

Mr. David Winnick: That excludes the Tories.

Mr. Wareing: I hope that it will not exclude them today. I hope that the Bill will be allowed to go forward and the arguments heard in the House so that there can be a vote on Second Reading, and that we do not have to wait for Conservative Members, sitting in on a Friday afternoon, to destroy it with the word "Object". The country is looking today to see who is and who is no prepared to support this important measure on human rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Derek Fatchett and Mr. George Howarth.

DISABLED PERSONS' RIGHTS

Mr. Robert N. Wareing accordingly presented a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people on the grounds of their disability: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of payments to local authorities of subsidies—

(a) relating to the making by these authorities of rebates in respect of payments made under that Act by persons to whom are let or sub-let or who occupy or are resident in premises in respect of which any community charge is payable, being payments to persons liable to pay that charge; and
(b) calculated by reference to such factors as are specified in or under the Social Security Act 1986 as modified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Ancram.]

ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Resolved,
That the Reports [25th February and 3rd March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Ryder.]
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) — [Mr. Ryder]—and agreed to.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill (Business Committee),—The Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had to come to a Resolution in respect of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House :
That—


(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 and 2, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 3 to 23, Schedule No. 2, Clause No. 24, Schedule No. 3, Clause No. 25, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 26 and 27, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 28 to 33, Schedule No. 6, Clause No. 34; and new Schedules;
(2) the allotted days which under the Order [11th February] are to be given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted days
Proceedings
Time for Conclusion of Proceedings


First day
New Clauses
7.30 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 8
9.30 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 22
Midnight


Second day
Remaining proceedings on consideration
8.15 p.m.



Third Reading
10 p.m.

That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 25th February be varied by substituting the following provisions for those in the Table at the end of that Resolution :—

TABLE


Allotted days
Proceedings
Time for Conclusion of Proceedings


First day
New Clauses
7.30 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 8
10 p.m.



Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 22
Midnight


Second day
Remaining proceedings on consideration
8.15 p.m.



Third Reading
10 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 178, which deals with the change for sports grounds, is printed on the Amendment Paper before the Opposition's amendment No. 31, so why has amendment No. 31 been selected in favour of amendment No. 178?

Mr. Speaker: I have explained to the House that that was a printer's error. Amendment No. 178 was submitted after amendment No. 31, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a different but related matter. We have agreed the allocation of time motion and I am not in any way critising that. It is possible that the rating of sports clubs might not be reached. If there is any possibility of that happening, can the House, by agreement, move certain clauses in a later debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not possible. The hon. Gentleman has been here before. If we get on, we may reach the amendment to which he refers.

New Clause

COMMUNITY CHARGE

'In the financial year 1989–90 no domestic rate shall be levied in one district authority to be specified by the Secretary of State and :

(a) the community charge shall be levied only in that authority,
(b) an independent commission shall be appointed consisting of representatives from Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish Office, Scottish Trades Union Congress, Valuation Assessors, Law Society to survey the operation of the Community Charge.
(c) the Commission shall report to the Secretary of State at the end of that year and he shall be bound to consider its findings before introducing the community charge in any other local authority if the Secretary of State decides to proceed with full implementation, it shall be completed by 31st March 1992.'.—[Mr. Dewar].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments to the new clause: Amendment (a), in line 3, after 'authority', insert
'the said authority having volunteered itself to the Secretary of State or, in the absence of such a volunteer, the authority shall be determined by the Secretary of State.'.
Amendment (b), in line 6, after 'Law Society', insert
'the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Institute of Local Government.'.

Mr. Dewar: I assure Conservative Members that we, too, are interested in what the Government will announce

with regard to sports clubs. We assume that it will he something positive. I hope that we are not disappointed. The pre-publicity, the briefings and the desire of Conservative Members to be in on the act presumably means that they are in the know. We await developments with interest. I expect that they are telephoning their local newspapers.
New clause 1 is a simple idea and extremely sensible. The two proposed amendments are unexceptionable. Indeed, they are helpful, and if they are acceptable to the Government, I would not object to their being made.
Although the essence of the clause is simple, there will inevitably be drafting difficulties with it and the Government will have to take it away and possibly reintroduce it in another place. We have no objection to withdrawing it if the Minister says that the principle finds favour with him.
We are simply suggesting that it would be common sense and that there would be a great deal of merit in the Government accepting that such a complicated, controversial and difficult reform should be tried in a selected area of Scotland I shall leave aside for the moment our view that the Government's proposal is essentially unjust. We have suggested a district council area, but if the Government suggested one of the smaller regions, we would not want to be difficult.
There should be an area in which we can monitor the practicalities and workability of the scheme which has been so heavily criticised. The assessment could help the House and the Government to reach a decision on whether the scheme should be introduced across the country.
We suggest that the monitoring should be assisted by an independent commission, the composition of which is suggested in the new clause. That may be the subject of some comment by the Minister, who is not noted for his charity when it comes to passing judgment on the efforts of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress or other organisations which represent genuine parts of Scottish opinion.
Of course we would be prepared to be helpful about that—ours is just a simple, straightforward suggestion that monitoring should be part of the programme. At the end of it, the Secretary of State and the Government will be able to make up their mind. I hope that the views of the commission and the experiences of the test area during the experiment would be highly persuasive on the final decision. I hope that I have advanced that argument clearly and fairly.
I should set out one or two of the reasons why we believe that the clause should find favour with the House. I should concede that I would not normally be in favour of the legislative equivalent of sale by sample. I accept that Governments normally legislate and normally produce plans, and if they find favour, and carry a majority with them, as Government plans have a habit of doing, they are implemented. If there is a debate it is in a public form and ultimately there may be repeal or modification in later years in the light of experience.
I am making a sensible suggestion, about a measure that is unusual. Because the poll tax scheme is so radical and so fundamental—many Labour Members would say that it was fundamentally wrong. We are suggesting this approach.
Everyone who has watched or taken part in this debate is aware that the poll tax proposals have been attacked, root and branch, by almost everybody which has


experience in the field, whether it be a local authority body per se or some other outside organisation which has an interest in community politics or representation within Scotland.
One or two groups have supported the reorganisation. I say that with no particular malice because it is fair comment. They have a clear financial interest in reorganisation and think that their membership will specifically benefit and that they will be among the minority who will win out of the reorganisation. Apart from those groups there has been almost no support for the scheme that is being proposed.
What is particularly important is that, apart from the reservations in principle which have been seen on every side, there is a genuine question mark of a sort that I have seldom seen before about the very practicality of the scheme. There are many people, officials and others, who will say, and are on record as saying, that the scheme will not work, that it will bring great chaos and confusion in its wake and that it has been totally misconceived by those who have drawn it up.
In those circumstances, we are in the rather special position where we can ask the House to pause and consider whether something of the kind that we are suggesting would not be sensible. The Government may object and say "Well, after all, there is an election coming up." It may be that this whole debate will be academic because, clearly, there is every possibility that this Government will lose office and will be swept away at the coming election. [Interruption.] I shall not make a great point of that. I am merely saying that that is a possibility. None of us know what will happen. We have our own feelings. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State knows that. Given his position in Scottish politics he should perhaps take a rather lower profile in this matter.
I must make it clear that everything that I say is said on the basis that the Government somehow manage to implement the scheme. That is the only basis on which we can sensibly debate the propositions. At this point I wish to make it clear—I would be failing in my duty if I did not—that that is not an assumption that I expect and it is certainly not an assumption that I accept. If we are to suspend reality and assume that the scheme will be pressed ahead, the first point that I would make—it would have widespread support on both sides of the House—is that the people of Scotland, the electorate, the unfortunate people who will have to pay the new poll tax have a right to know exactly how it will work. That is not the position at the moment. They have been presented with a series of slogans and a series of arguments by assertion. The credit that the Government are looking for is the bonus for having acted, but they are extremely anxious to avoid the discord that I think will come when people begin to realise exactly how the scheme will operate in practice.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is something of a condemnation of the Labour Members who served on the Committee, that after about 1,200 columns of Hansard they have not asked the right questions to elicit exactly how this scheme will operate?

Mr. Dewar: I recognise that in the portion of Fife that is represented by the hon. Gentleman no doubt all the electorate read Hansard, and particularly Committee

Hansard. They may well have been reading the hon. Gentleman's speeches, which says something about the reasons for his rather poor prospects electorally.

Mr. John Maxton: He did not make any speeches.

Mr. Dewar: I am assured that the hon. Gentleman made no speeches. I cannot help that. In the past we have had at times a rather bad-tempered debate on this Bill. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is being a little silly. People do not follow these debates in detail. There is no great knowledge of exactly how the various practical difficulties will be overcome. That is a simple point which I should have thought was not particularly contentious.
4 pm
Another general argument concerns constitutional matters. The Secretary of State would be well advised to think about, if not building a basis of agreement on the scheme, at least reassuring people that every effort is being made to remove, whenever possible, its practical difficulties and obnoxious features. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that he represents a small minority of opinion in Scotland. He is fond of quoting Radical Scotland, and he did so on the timetable motion. I read the interview which he gave to Radical Scotland the other day and was glad to find that his ambition is becoming more realistic. He says that his aim —presumably, it is optimistic—is to attract about 30 per cent. of the Scottish vote to the Conservative party, and no more than that. I do not think that there is any real prospect of achieving that, but I have made that point because it shows the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recognition of the fact that the Rifkind factor has not had quite the exciting impact on Scottish politics that the Conservative party hoped when he was catapulted into his present job.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the excellent point made by the Secretary of State when he said that the issue was between Unionists of all parties and the Scottish Nationalists?

Mr. Dewar: I like a little excitement in my politics. If it is to be a contest between the Nationalists and the Conservative party, I am afraid that it is going to be a pushover. I should not like to accept that as a genuine contest or to ally myself with the unlikely people who have been invited to take part.
There is a problem in Scotland for the Government. They should show a little restraint. There should be recognition of the Government's essential weaknesses. The Government should welcome any machinery which the new clause proposes that would allow time for the Government to pause, consider, test and, if necessary, modify the Bill in the light of public opinion in Scotland. The Government will not be able by that process to remove the essential error of the legislation. They will not be able to produce consent, but they might achieve slightly less grudging acceptance. If they do not do that, there is a danger that they will be seen to be imposing an unwanted system on the Scottish people, and it may become an issue in a way that no Government would welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State will carefully consider that constitutional and practical argument.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: On the hon. Gentleman's point about acquiring consent, does he believe that he would give consent to the Labour party's proposals to introduce regular revaluations based on capital values and to impose rating on agricultural land and buildings in Scotland after the row that we had about the last revaluation?

Mr. Dewar: I must confess that I would be rather more confident about introducing my proposals knowing that I had the support of about 50 per cent. of the Scottish electorate in a four-party system than I would be about the measures of a group of Ministers who control a separate legislative system within the United Kingdom but who cannot claim to have any broad-based support in Scotland. That is a different base from which to operate and it colours the argument of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
This is not an occasion when we should rehearse at great length the arguments about the scheme's virtues. Conservative Members will be uncomfortably aware that the scheme appeared from nowhere. Its parentage is largely unknown, despite our energetic attempts, rather unfairly, to lump them on the slim shoulders of the hon. Member for Stirling. The scheme must have more respectable antecedents than that. It is clear that the scheme is totally counter to the 1981 Green Paper, "Alternatives to Domestic Rates", which argued persuasively against a poll tax. It is incompatible with the Government's White Paper in the autumn of 1983 which, as everyone remembers, discovered that the rating system was "fundamentally sound." After that, there was a sudden retreat and expediency and opportunism overwhelmed the type of measured logic and investigation which had led to the earlier conclusion.
The results are extremely unfortunate. Taking one district authority in Scotland and experimenting to see how the scheme works in practice would help to overcome many of the difficulties which we expect, and it would be of enormous help to public opinion in deciding on the competing claims for the fairness or otherwise of the scheme. We have alleged —I say "alleged" because it has been challenged and, therefore, I cannot say that it is fact, although it is well based on local government research—and we certainly hold, to use a more neutral term, that there will be a substantial shift between those areas within a local government unit which are already high amenity areas and advantaged and those which are not and are disadvantaged. There have been many examples of that based on calculations on what will happen in Newlands, Cathcart and various parts of Edinburgh such as the Edinburgh, Pentlands and Edinburgh, South constituencies.
We have been met with a pained expression from the Government, who say that we have not fully taken the rebate system into account. It is difficult to take it into account because the details have not been announced, but I understand their point. People in Scotland may well be confused about who has the better argument. I do not think that they will have any doubt if they look at the evidence. But the best way of establishing what will happen is to try the scheme, and that is where we come to the proposals in the new clause which would do a great deal to underline the incompatibilities and the confusion in the Government's argument.
The Government are in an odd position. If we say that there is to be a shift against the battered inner cities and against the peripheral housing schemes, Ministers say, "It will not happen because of the rebate factor." The Government are so keen on the scheme because they hold that the rates system is "corrupt", and they have used exactly that term. Ministers say that the rates system is maintained by corrupt politicians who are interested only in giving an unfair advantage to certain groups such as the people who live in Pilton, Drumchapel or the battered inner cities. They say that it is a corrupt system giving a corrupt advantage and that the payload is votes for the Labour party. It has been said as crudely as that, even by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
If that is the position, surely it is impossible at the same time to argue that there is not going to be a shift. The whole point of bringing in this scheme is to create a shift. Ministers should not be saying that my constituents in the battered peripheral housing schemes or the constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in an older city area will not be adversely affected. The logic of their position is to say, "Those people will be adversely affected, but so they should be, because we want to help the hard-pressed inhabitants of Eastwood or of Bearsden. We are going to bring about that shift and defend it." The essential dishonesty in the Government's opinion is that they pretend that the shift will not take place. They talk essentially with a double meaning. If there were a reasonably balanced area in which the test could be carried out, we would have the proof of the pudding, people would be able to judge and I believe that they would find on our side of the argument. I hope that they would have a substantial influence on how other people see the extension of the experiment. An important point of principle is involved. Enormous practical matters would be ironed out if there were the dry run or the test to which I have referred.
The practical points are so numerous that it is difficult to know which to pick out. For example, we would have some experience in organising the register and we would know whether it was practical or impractical, as we fear. There is no argument about the fact that, in a year, there is a turnover of about 25 per cent. of people on the electoral register. The complications of running a rolling register, keeping track of people who move from house to house—for example, 18-year-olds perhaps moving from different flats with friends or different members of their families — and apportioning their poll tax will be a nightmare.
We know that almost everyone in local government is suspicious of the cost implications of the £17 million to £22 million in a full year of operation, of the £9 million that it will cost to compile the register, and knows how impractical it will be to have feet pounding the streets to make sure that the register is accurate and up to date.
In the memorandum attached to the original copy of the Bill there is no firm assessment of staffing consequences. We know that enforcement procedures will be a nightmare. There are still major queries from the legal world about how one can catch up with someone who hops across a local government boundary perhaps, best of all, for the most innocent of purposes. There are queries about how, when one catches up with him to gain entry, if he has not paid his proportion of poll tax in his area, one can identify the goods that one impounds, how to organise the sale of such goods, and how to cope with what many


experts in the legal field and in the sheriff's office believe will be about a four or five times increase in the number of actions that will be taken. Those points throw a shadow on the practicality of the scheme. If we had a test, we could iron out the problems. Even if, in our view, it were an unjustified experiment — a piece of regressive social engineering — at least it might be possible to get a scheme that will work if it is introduced on a wider scale.
I hope that my points will commend themselves to the House and even to Ministers. We shall canvass some points later in the two-day debate in the final Commons stage of the Bill. I am anxious that we should give the unfortunate people who are threatened by the scheme, in terms of having to operate it, every chance to get the right answers. We should not stampede them into confusion and chaos. The simple, academic difficulties that we are discussing, will, if the Government have their way, become practical difficulties that will snag, foul up, trip up and disorganise what, at the moment, is a local revenue-raising scheme which, in practical terms, has many advantages.
There is concern—the Minister must recognise this—right across the spectrum of opinion, and certainly across informed opinion in Scotland. In today's mail, Opposition Members received institutional concern from COSLA. I know that the Minister considers COSLA to be a hostile and, in some way, almost sinister organisation, but it reflects the way in which the people of Scotland vote, and that is why the hon. Member for Stirling does not like it. Also, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in England, and the Association of County Councils in England wrote to Opposition Members today. As I understand it, those associations are not under Conservative control. We received—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will recognise this—a letter from a lady in Perthshire, reflecting the proper concerns of the Methodist church in Scotland. I mention her only because her letter was in today's mail, but her case could be mirrored. Other examples of social concern have been found in the mailbag almost every day since the debate started.
The new clause is a practical contribution to the debate. We are trying to mitigate or avoid a disaster that we believe will certainly occur. There is virtue in test runs. They may be on a rather different scale. Again, by coincidence, in today's mail there was a Scottish Office news release referring to the next census—a complicated operation, it was said, but it is simplicity itself compared with the remodelling that we are looking at in local government finance.
As the Minister will be aware, we shall run a voluntary census test, taking Ross and Cromarty, Angus and the city of Dundee, or parts of them, as the test bed, to try to work out the gremlins and get rid of the faults and difficulties, so that when the all-Scotland experience occurs and when the sweep across the country is required, we shall be in a better position. It is exactly the same sensible principle, and I hope that the Government will not dismiss it and consider it to be some sort of attempt to wreck the scheme. It is a way of saying that we do not like it. It will give public opinion a practical chance, before we are irreversibly committed, to test the various claims that are made, but, most important of all, it is an effort to make sure that,

when we move towards some form of reform, if the Government have their way, at least it will be a practical scheme that will not disgrace or embarrass us all.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I carefully listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I make it abundantly clear that I would be the last person to believe that COSLA is a sinister organisation, unless one were to wish to use the word sinister in its original Latin sense, in which case it might indeed be a fairly appropriate description.
With regard to the general theme of the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate, at one stage he got into rather dangerous waters. He implied that the Government's attitude towards rate reform in Scotland should be influenced by the degree of political support that the Government, or indeed any political party, has in Scotland at present. I can understand that argument coming from the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). He started from a clear, simple position that is consistent with the argument of the mandate that we often hear from Opposition Members. The right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to feel comfortable using that argument.
4.15 pm
It is indeed the case that, since 1951, only one Conservative Government has had a majority of hon. Members from Scotland. It also happens to be the case that, since 1951, only one Labour Government has had a majority of hon. Members from England. I am not conscious of the hon. Member for Garscadden or other Opposition Members ever having suggested that the opportunity or the right — indeed, the propriety—of a United Kingdom Government to vote on English domestic issues, despite not holding a majority of seats in England, should in any way, either in the past or in the future, be restrained.

Mr. Dewar: I did not and would not challenge the right of the United Kingdom Government, but propriety is another matter. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, Opposition Members are strongly committed to a system that would have a directly elected assembly in Edinburgh, which would be responsible for internal legislative matters that affect Scotland, and which are presently under his remit as Secretary of State. Given the overwhelming consensus in Scotland for such reform, it would be highly inappropriate for the Government to barge on and totally ignore Scottish opinion and put in a scheme that few of us want in that part of the world.

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, he must realise that he is exposed to the hollowness of his position. The proposals that he put forward on the wider issues would result in an even graver aggravation of the point that I have just made. In future he and I, if we were still hon. Members, would vote on English domestic issues in a way that might not represent the views of the majority of hon. Members from south of the border. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in his opening comments. It is acceptable and understandable for the right hon. Member for Western Isles and his political colleagues to use arguments about the relative political strengths of parties in Scotland, but if no Labour Government bar one has had a majority in England since 1951 — that corresponds to the position of the


Conservative party in Scotland — the hon. Gentleman must apply his new, curious constitutional principle throughout the spectrum of government or cease to use such arguments.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State is self-critical, which certainly is most refreshing. Equally, his criticism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is much to be welcomed by my party. Does he agree that he is talking about electoral reform?

Mr. Rifkind: As 85 per cent. of the people of Scotland vote for the unionist parties and realise that the outcome of a general election is a United Kingdom Government, and as at any one moment there can be only one United Kingdom Government, clearly it is that party which commands the majority in this House that will be the body that is responsible for legislation.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Both Front Benches have referred to the issue that is now before the House, but I think that we might now drop it and get on with consideration of the clause.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the logic of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) says that a Labour Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made it clear to the House that we must not pursue this matter. Let us get on with the clause.

Mr. Rifkind: Another suggestion by the hon. Member for Garscadden was that public opinion in Scotland is hostile to the Bill, and he produced evidence in support of that allegation. He will know that the majority of people in Scotland, if the polls are anything to go by, are hostile to the domestic rating system. Despite that, the Labour party has felt perfectly free to make proposals in the last few days that would involve the continuation of that system.

Mr. Dewar: What polls?

Mr. Rifkind: Numerous polls have suggested that the majority of people in Scotland believe that the domestic rating system is unfair and would prefer an alternative system. People have put up various alternatives, including members of the Liberal and the Scottish Nationalist parties. However, the hon. Member for Garscadden will be aware that his party is the only one that is still thirled to the domestic rating system in Scotland. He will also be aware that his party received only one third of Scottish votes at the last general election. He must take that fact into account, too, if he wishes to adopt such an approach.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As to the evidence about the popularity or otherwise of the Government's poll tax proposals, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware of the opinion poll that was conducted by Systems Three in November that made it clear that 86 per cent. of the Scottish people believe that local taxation should be based upon ability to pay? If, therefore, a poll tax that was unrelated to ability to pay was levied on every taxpayer, regardless of income, it would be plainly and overwhelmingly unpopular in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is distorting the outcome of that opinion poll. He is well aware that a significant proportion of the Scottish adult population will probably be entitled to rebates under the Government's proposals. Therefore, ability to pay will be taken into account in the case of the unemployed and those on very low incomes. We are entitled to say, on precisely that basis, that these considerations have been understood and that we have responded to them.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the effects of the Government's proposals would lead to a major shift from one section of the community to another. He chose very selective examples. For example, he could have said that the Government's proposals would lead to a major shift in favour of widows.

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr. Rifkind: They most certainly will. They will also lead to a shift in favour of single parents and of mothers who are left alone to bring up children by themselves.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
Compared with the domestic rating system, some 80 per cent. of widows or widowers will benefit considerably from the community charge proposals. The same applies — perhaps to an even greater extent—to an adult, usually a mother who is left to bring up her children alone because her husband has died but who is bearing the same rates burden as the family of working adults who live next door.
The proposals also demonstrate a shift away from the arbitrary consideration of whether an adult is the occupier of rateable property and towards the consideration that all adults who benefit from local services should make a contribution towards the cost of those services.
Neither today nor on any previous occasion has the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends sought to justify the basic iniquity of the present system under which 20 per cent. of the adult population of Scotland, who are neither ratepayers nor the spouses of ratepayers, make not a penny contribution towards the revenue that is raised by local authorities. It is particularly reprehensible that, even though the Labour party has now come forward with what it chooses to call a new deal for the ratepayer, it still does not meet that basic injustice.

Mr. Dewar: Why did the Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member come to the positive conclusion in August 1983 that the rating system was fundamentally sound?

Mr. Rifkind: We do not now take that view. We have given further consideration to the matter and we have identified an alternative that we believe to be infinitely preferable The hon. Gentleman has considered this matter for the last year and a half and now he produces alternative proposals that do not meet by a single iota the basic injustice of the existing system. Under his alternative proposals, the widow would still pay the same as the family of working adults living next door. Furthermore, 20 per cent. of adults who are not ratepayers would not make a penny contribution to the community, despite the fact that they are in work and despite the level of their income, whereas others who might be on smaller incomes would continue to pay a heavy and an increasing rates burden.
The hon. Gentleman is content with that and he is prepared to defend it because he believes that it is entirely acceptable.
Today we have the privilege of a new clause being put before the House that the House is asked to consider. I agree with one point that the hon. Member for Garscadden made when he introduced it. He described it as a very simple clause. I happily identify with that description. It is a very simple, absurd, proposition that I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman or anybody else expects us to take seriously. When asked for his view on the subject, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said :
Despite some technicalities, it is a suggestion worthy of further consideration".
That is a polite way of saying that Councillor Fagan, the president of COSLA, thinks that it is as much of a nonsense as most of us do.
The way in which the hon. Gentleman would like this experiment to operate would have some curious consequences. We are told that an independent commission would be appointed to scrutinise the effects of the community charge in one particular local authority and to report within a year, and that the Secretary of State would be bound to consider its findings before introducing the community charge elsewhere. We are entitled to ask to what extent we could be satisfied about the independence of the commission that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are proposing.

Mr. Dewar: The responsibility would be on COSLA.

Mr. Rifkind: No, it is not just COSLA. A number of organisations are mentioned here. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned COSLA, he may take the view that COSLA would start off with a completely open mind on the subject. He might believe that COSLA is not parti pris and that it would be prepared to look at this question entirely objectively. I have no doubt that Councillor Fagan would say that he would be prepared to put aside all past ideas, prejudices and political affiliation and examine the matter with the total independence that one would expect from a boundaries commission. [Interruption.] No, not like I do. I fully accept that my political views are relevant to the proposals that I put forward, but in the new clause we are dealing with an independent commission, not a political commission.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask whether the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has operated as an independent, non-political organisation in the last few years. But other organisations are included — for example, the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The Scottish TUC has a legitimate role to play in Scottish public life, and I have never suggested otherwise, but I find it difficult to understand exactly why it should be picked from all the organisations in Scottish public life because it is thought to be a body that is particularly appropriate to express an independent view on the desirability of the community charge.
I can assume only that it would be expected, at least for the time being, to forget that it is affiliated to the Labour party. That would clearly be of no relevance. We are asked to believe that the fact that most members of the STUC are affiliated to the Labour party would have no effect on

its independent assessment of the merits of the proposals. It was wicked of me to suggest otherwise. I fully appreciate that.
4.30 pm
What is interesting is not just the organisations included on the body but the ones not included. One might have thought that the Federation of Scottish Ratepayers, for example, would not have been an entirely irrelevant body to assess the effects of a new system of local government finance. After all, it represents the people who pay under the present system. However, it is suggested that it should have no role on such an independent commission at a time when COSLA and the STUC are to be involved.
The hon. Member for Garscadden put that forward—

Mr. Bruce Millan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wasting time.

Mr. Rifkind: Wasting time is a good description of this new clause.

Mr. Millan: Stop wasting time with this ridiculous filibuster.

Mr. Rifkind: What an extraordinary proposition. His hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden tabled a new clause and spoke to it. I am speaking to it now and unless the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) agrees that it is an absurd new clause and is not put forward as a serious contribution to the debate, I suggest that he rises or remains silent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) wants to intervene, he should do so in the proper way.

Mr. Henderson: In his brief opening remarks, following the 25-minute speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that it would be more understandable if one of the independent bodies put on the commission proposed by the Opposition was the Scottish Co-operative Society, which has obviously found great difficulty in paying its rates to Fife regional council?

Mr. Rifkind: It may be that that would be another sort of independent advice and would be able to make a useful contribution. I am quite happy to accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Govan. He is right to say that this new clause does not require a lengthy response. One simply has to refer to considerations such as those I have raised to demonstrate that it is not put forward as a serious proposal but as an opportunity for some interesting comments by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
Over the past few months, the Government have illustrated not only the advantages of our proposals for the community charge, but have met many of the comments that have been made with regard to some of the serious points raised by outside bodies in respect of administrative details. The hon. Member for Garscadden commented substantially on what he thought to be the administrative problems. I should say to him, for example, that we have received recently a letter from the Rating and Valuation Association. The honorary secretary of the association said that he had been
asked by the President of the Scottish Branch of the Association to express to you how welcome to our practitioner members involved in the rating system your recent announcement that there will be no transitional period


… Clearly, this will ease the implementation making the specification of computer systems, administration etc. that much simpler.
The announcement came at quite an appropriate moment … the National President … was able to convey the news which was very warmly welcomed to a number of practitioners who were attending a seminar that day.

Mr. Maxton: Read the whole thing.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can read the whole thing. He will see that there is no suggestion that what remains is totally unworkable or impossible or any of the other things suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
We have responded to many of the detailed points made by non-political organisations that have no political axe to grind and pointed out ways in which the administration of the Bill could be improved. The hon. Member for Garscadden knows that our announcement last week was warmly welcomed throughout Scotland as representing a major improvement with regard to the administration of the Bill.

Mr. Dick Douglas: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: Therefore, the hon. Member for Garscadden should acknowledge that the Government are prepared to listen to genuine suggestions for the improved administration of our proposals, but not to those that are essentially politically motivated.

Mr. Maclennan: This Government, above all, ought to put forward their proposals for the reform of local taxation with a degree of modesty flowing from the experience that Parliament and the country have had of the errors they have made in the past, which have resulted in taxation being levied without proper authority and retrospective legislation having to be introduced to set it right.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has moved an important clause which should have the support of the House, as it would enable the practicality of the Government's proposal for the implementation of a poll tax in Scotland to be tested. I do not understand why the Secretary of State has set his face against the idea of having a test of the scheme because, in a sense, the whole Bill is a test. Scotland is the test bed of a scheme being tried out for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared to treat Scotland as a test bed for the United Kingdom, I see no reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland should not treat a single local authority area, no doubt one chosen with its agreement, as a suitable test bed for the Scottish scheme.
The Secretary of State has been cavalier in his treatment of the constitutional issues raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden. It is not a matter of whether he and his party enjoy majority support in Scotland. However, it is well known that it has not had that support for some time and that it will not have it for some time. The important issue is that when major changes are made to constitutional relationships and institutions within this country, if they are to last, they should enjoy broad-based support drawn from political parties across the spectrum. In the past, there have been special arrangements when an issue of constitutional importance was at stake to ensure that such broad-based support existed. There were special arrangements for a referendum in the case of our adhesion to the

European Community and there were special arrangements for consulting Scottish opinion after the implementation of the Scotland Act 1978 to set up a Scottish Assembly.
This is a constitutional measure of major importance, altering, as it does, the relationship between local authorities in Scotland and central Government and drawing from local authority independence of spending power, reducing their control over local taxation to a mere 13 per cent. and removing local accountability. It is not simply a redistributive or regressive measure bearing hardly upon those least able to pay in the community, but a measure designed to draw control over local government decision making into central Government. As such, it ought to be seen to enjoy broad support, or not be implemented.
In Committee, alliance amendments were tabled to ensure that it would not be implemented until after a second general election had taken place to show that there was a settled view in Scotland in favour of thechange proposed by the Government. As the Secretary of State knows, the alliance does not favour this change, although it is firmly of the view that the rating system no longer enjoys the sort of support that ought to lead to its being retained.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: This is a short debate and has been guillotined by a decision of the Government. Therefore, I will not give way to interventions by the hon. Gentleman.
The Government have never faced up to the fact that they have performed a volte-face. As recently as 1983, they were commending the system of local taxation which they are now seeking to toss aside after 200 years. That system, for all its anomalies, faults and inequities, to which attention has been drawn by the alliance parties, has enjoyed support over a long period and the Government have no right to bring forward for implementation a set of proposals which enjoy so little support and which have been subjected to the criticisms that have been made by all those who will be responsible for its implementation. There have been criticisms of its practicality, of the difficulty of drawing up registers of those who will be liable to pay the poll tax and of the enforcement procedures, made by all those connected with the legal profession, such as sheriff officers and the like.
There have been doubts about the power contained in the schedule, which merely permits local authorities to enforce the taxation but does not require them to do so. There have been doubts about whether local authorities can therefore opt out of the taxation and, by their decision, exempt those less-favoured members of the community. Those are some of the reasons why it is right that the new clause should be adopted by the House. It would be right to make an objective appraisal of how the system can be made to work in practice before implementing it.
The two amendments tabled by the alliance parties are designed to increase the authority of the report that would be produced by the commission on its operations by introducing into the commission further elements of expertise. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has done extremely good work in analysing local taxation and the institute of local government studies attached to the university of Birmingham has made special


studies of Scottish finance which suit that body to be considered among those bodies appropriate to view and analyse the impact of the tax scheme in practice.
Amendment (a) is designed to ensure that the implementation of the test is not forced upon an unwilling authority—if there is an authority in Scotland willing to take on the job. I am glad that the hon. Member for Garscadden welcomes and accepts the two modest amendments proposed by the alliance parties to give greater weight to the experiment that he has suggested.
The Secretary of State must appreciate that, because of the electoral unpopularity of his party due to the row that broke out in Scotland over revaluation, the people of Scotland will take very unkindly to having foisted upon them a system of taxation of local government that is intended to last for many years. They will not take kindly to a device that is intended to get him out of a temporary difficulty, to help him over a difficult party conference, which has the potential for causing great damage to the authority of local government in Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was right. The Secretary of State's predecessor was responsible for taking a decision which we might have thought would have been a reason for the present Secretary of State distancing himself from such a patently dotty scheme as that which is being put before the electorate. However, the Secretary of State must take into account the fact that the Scottish people are not so foolish as to accept the idea that they should buy this policy now and pay later.
The Scottish people want to know how the scheme will work out in practice and how it will affect the burdens on the poor and the capacity of local government to deliver the services which Parliament has entrusted it to provide. They want to know how it will affect the relationship between central and local government and they want to understand whether, as appears to be the case, the scheme is simply a means of further reducing the discretion of local authorities over public spending. They want to know whether it is designed to draw into the centre all decision-making power over local spending. That is what the Bill is about and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who was in charge of the Bill in Committee made it quite plain that that is what the Bill is all about. That is why the new clause should be accepted and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I want to comment on one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who introduced the new clause. Before I do that, in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who said that this was a constitutional issue, I hope that he will follow through his arguments in relation to the presentation of SDP and Liberal party policy on this issue. No doubt we will receive very detailed proposals from the hon. Gentleman that local income tax will be preceded by a referendum and an experimental year in Caithness and Sutherland.
I also noted with some interest that the list of hon. Members who tabled the SDP and Liberal amendment is headed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). The people of Scotland will be interested to know that on detailed matters of local

government finance the right hon. Gentleman takes clear precedence over the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party. I also noticed that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has not added his name in support of the amendment, presumably because he is too busy in Oxford.
4.45 pm
I want to consider some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden in relation to Eastwood. The hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient heed to the key argument in favour of going ahead with the community charge as quickly and as clearly as possible. He has not paid sufficient heed to the accountability argument. That argument was absolutely established in Committee and was accepted by the Opposition without any doubt. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said in column 274:
Yes, all tax systems are more accountable if more people pay taxes." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 274.]
He repeated that point later. The key argument for the community charge as against domestic rates is the need to ensure that local government in Scotland is more accountable as quickly as possible. That argument has been highlighted by the recent proposed rate rises, especially in Strathclyde and Lothian.
I believe that the Strathclyde proposals are particularly iniquitous. The proposal is for a 20 per cent. increase in rates, despite the very low rate of inflation and despite the fact that the Government's grant to Strathclyde has been increased by 9 per cent. The rise is proposed even though Fife regional council is imposing a rate increase as low as 6·5 per cent.—although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) rightly concludes that that is too high.
The accountability argument is highlighted by the way in which Strathclyde has admitted that the unjustified rate increase will cost jobs. Indeed, I understand that at the statutory consultation meeting with non-domestic ratepayers, the leader of Strathclyde council justified the increase by saying that the council was there to implement Socialism.

Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman say that Bill Anderson of the National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses was a member of the Labour party and a Socialist? Mr. Anderson happens to have congratulated Strathclyde region on the way in which it undertook its consultation with him and other businesses.

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Bill Anderson is, of course, a Liberal. There is no doubt about that and it is not surprising that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by Strathclyde region.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to my constituents and the redistribution towards them. In answer to that, I want to quote from a letter that I received this morning from the Mearns community council. The chairman and the council rightly point out :
the inhabitants of Mearns are pretty representative of the ordinary hard working Scot in their range of both political affiliations and activities and they have the same problems as everyone else in obtaining jobs, educating children and generally making ends meet.


They object to the wholly unjustified rates increase by Strathclyde and the diversion by Strathclyde region of facilities which could go to my constituency into other parts of Strathclyde.
The hon. Member for Garscadden paid no attention to the fact that three quarters of all households will either be better off or will lose less than £1 a week under these proposals, and that single pensioner households and one-parent families will do well.
There is an overriding need to ensure better accountability for local government in Scotland at the earliest opportunity. There is no case for delaying the Bill, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will not accept the new clause.

Mr. Douglas: I did not take part in the Second Reading debate because I was on other House of Commons business, and I was not a member of the Committee, but I have an unfortunate habit of taking the Secretary of State at his word. On 9 December, he said:
I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
That was a truthful sentence, but the next sentence was riddled with what I would not call lies, but certainly great exaggerations. He said:
The Bill is a radical and reforming measure which will abolish a discredited and unpopular local tax."—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 200.]
Of course, it does not abolish the rates as a whole.

Mr. Rifkind: It abolishes domestic rates.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State should contain himself. He knows that the Bill does not completely abolish a discredited and unpopular tax. It tries to abolish domestic rates.
The Secretary of State's argument throughout the debate has centred on accountability. If he is so sure of his ground, it would be a modest concession to embark upon the experiment or sample period that is proposed in the new clause. But he is never sure of his ground. He puts up Aunt Sallys about opposition to his views and then, with his usual verbal skill, knocks them down.
Why do we have a crisis with the rates? It is not because the rates are an unaccountable tax. It is because they are an unpopular tax, as are nearly all taxes. But they are the most politically accountable tax because people can see the imposition of the tax in total. If we want to move from a system of taxation that is directly politically accountable towards a system that provides reasonable flexibility in accountability, we should move from direct to indirect taxation. I do not argue that the poll tax will be unaccountable. Of course, because it is a regressive tax and because of how it is paid, it will be reasonably politically accountable. But that does not mean that it will be fair.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is arguing that rates should be perceptible, not that they should be accountable?

Mr. Douglas: That is a distinction without a difference. People see rates, so they are politically accountable.
The Secretary of State gives the impression that only Tory Members of Parliament come face to face, in surgeries or elsewhere, with local electors and local opinion. That is not true. District and regional councillors also have direct contact with local electors and must be accountable to them for the provision of services. If they transgress, are profligate in the provision of services or

misuse their resources, they will pay the penalty at the next election. According to the Secretary of State, the Conservatives object to the fact that some people benefit from services in a local authority area but do not pay for them. But many people who live in Edinburgh benefit from services in Fife. It is preposterous to say that some people notionally benefit from services but do not pay, and that we should try to alter boundaries to overcome that difficulty.
If the Secretary of State is as sure of his ground as he suggested, there would be no harm and much good in embarking cautiously on a period of experiment, using one region or district to analyse the effects of the change—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) does not like anything relating to taxation that does not bear the imprimatur of the market. I understand his position, but I have heard him say that, although every system of taxation is wrong, he wants the benefits of public expenditure for his constituency. I have never heard him say that the roads in his constituency should be financed by tolls. That is a clear case of people who do not pay benefiting from a system.
We all know the difficulties involved in central Government raising taxation. People do not like paying tax, but they like the benefits that flow from public expenditure. We must try to devise a system of taxation that will accommodate people's ability to pay. Throughout the argument, the Secretary of State has said that rates are an unfair tax, but he has not assessed the impact of taxation as a whole. If we had the opportunity to examine the new system in a district or region, we could reasonably analytically—we could not be 100 per cent. exact—see where the burden of taxation fell and where it was passed on. We could see whether the poll tax placed the burden of taxation on the individuals in a household or whether it was passed on.
One difficulty of rating commercial premises is that the small business man cannot always pass on taxation. It is complete nonsense to suggest that industrial concerns pay rates. Their customers pay the rates indirectly. The problem for a small business man, which will largely remain under the proposed system, is that he cannot pass on the burden because of the competition for customers. The Bill accepts that that will be unavoidable.
I plead with the Secretary of State to get away from the attitude of a famous football player, who was so good that he thought that if he was chocolate he would eat himself.

Mr. John Home Robertson: He was not at Rangers.

Mr. Douglas: Yes, he was, and still is at Rangers.
The Secretary of State seems to think that everything that he has thought of is good and that anybody who opposes it, whether the Scottish Trades Union Council, COSLA, or anybody else, is wrong, because the Secretary of State has had a conversion from what he thought in 1983 to what he thinks in 1987. That is understandable, because we all change our minds and can be persuaded. However, it is only he, and some of his supporters, who have been persuaded. The people of Scotland have not been persuaded. If one is to persuade them that this is an acceptable reform and that it is so radical and of such magnitude that great benefits will flow from it, we should at least have a little pause and experiment to see whether


it works administratively in terms of the burden of taxation as a whole. Therefore, we should accept the new clause of the hon. Member for Garscadden.

5 pm

Sir Hector Monro: The burden of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is "Delay and delay because I want to keep the present iniquitous system." That is certainly not what the majority want. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is bringing the system into operation in 1989. That gives local authorities two years to prepare, and they should manage to do that quite easily.
I wish to comment on the strange new doctrine of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that any controversial legislation should be followed by a referendum. Every Labour Government—sometimes supported by the Liberal party—since 1950 have maintained their majority because of the Scottish Labour Members, so we would have had a referendum in England on almost every Bill. His idea that a referendum should follow legislation could not possibly be sustained.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spent much of his speech telling the country how the new clause would affect Scotland. However, he was most unfair—as one would naturally expect—because he left out all the important aspects that the people of Scotland want to know about. They want to know that there will be no further revaluation of domestic properties and that they can improve and add garages, porches and other assets to their houses without having the rating valuation of their property increased.
The business community will be very pleased to know that their rates cannot be increased by more than the rate of inflation, or by a formula that is tied to inflation. I shall comment later on the dramatic increases that they faced under Labour administrations in the current year. The Government are providing valuable assistance to students by raising their grants, and the collection of the community charge on properties with non-permanent residents will be particularly helpful. We shall also update the rolling register. There will be the right of appeal on any infringements. Three quarters of all householders will either be better off or will pay only about £1 a week extra. Single pensioners will do especially well, and 85 per cent. of them will gain. About 80 per cent. of single adult householders—especially one-parent families—will also gain.

Mr. James Wallace: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) intervenes, if the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gives way, I remind the hon. Member for Dumfries that he should relate what he is saying to the new clause, which deals with an experiment in a particular district.

Sir Hector Monro: Yes. I am following the hon. Member for Garscadden who pointed out how the legislation would be detrimental throughout Scotland. I say that throughout Scotland it will be advantageous. Therefore, there is certainly no need to carry out any experiments in any region.

Mr. Wallace: I am interested to know when the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the poll tax took place. I seem

to remember that as a true and loyal supporter of his party he backed the conclusion of the 1983 White Paper that the present rating system was fine. Perhaps he would date his conversion. Does it stem from the statement by Sir James Goold who, prior to last year's Green Paper, told all Conservative Members to back it, whatever it contained?

Sir Hector Monro: What a pathetic intervention. I am only surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not delve into local income tax or something ineffective, or planning on agricultural land, which seem to be so important to the Liberal party.
There is the important issue of accountability which, whether applicable to a particular district or the whole of Scotland, has been brought out so well by my right hon. Friend. In the same way, the importance of this to Scotland and the reason why we do not want to have any attachment to a district experiment is that the Labour party intends to rate agricultural land and buildings, which are presently exempt—[Interruption.] One reason why we do not want experiments is that we do not want to see some of those Labour party proposals brought into effect.
We want to get on with the legislation and introduce it in its entirety in 1989 because it would be so much more fair to the vast majority of people in Scotland, especially when one considers the position of the business ratepayers in Scotland at present, and also that of domestic ratepayers. We see swingeing increases in Socialist-dominated authorities of anything between 10 and 34 per cent. That will directly damage jobs, especially in Strathclyde and Lothian. I do not see people living in those areas wanting experiments to retain the existing situation, especially those that at present come under a Labour-controlled authority.
One only has to look in the Sunday Post—I am sure that all Opposition Members read it religiously every Sunday—to see that a continuation, by experiment, of the ideas of the Labour party as contained in the new clause would have a damaging effect and lead to an enormous loss of jobs by an incredible increase in rates in the Labour-controlled areas of Scotland. It is especially worrying to see that that has happened when certain district councils will be able to reduce their rate levy this year, provide the same services and even improve their sport and recreational facilities.
All in all, I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the new clause and highlight again the importance of getting on with a fair and just new system of rating valuation. That is what we all want and I hope that that will take place as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Stirling is a university town. I might be tempted to give the new clause some consideration if I believed for a minute that Stirling might be the area where the experiment would be held. However, I have to say that, thanks to the amendment that has been accepted by the Labour party and that which was proposed by the so-called alliance, that would depend on the local authority deciding to be such a pilot scheme area. Knowing how it has soaked business and domestic rate payers—to their considerable cost—I hardly think it likely that Stirling district council, or any other Labour-controlled district council in Scotland, would suddenly cut itself off from the supply of money without accountability, which it has had for so long, and which lies behind the Labour party's last desperate attempts to keep the rating system in at least one part of Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will allow me to make my point.
Stirling is a university town. However, the last book shop in Stirling closed the other day because of the rates. The toy shop to which I used to take my children also closed the other day—again because of the rates. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who has moved the new clause is suggesting that there should be one area in Scotland where there is an experiment. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) told the Committee that rates and the success of businesses were not connected. He told the Committee that rates did not have an effect on businesses. I find it staggering to have lectures from the Labour party on what the people of Scotland think and what is happening in Scotland when it believes that rates do not have an effect on businesses.
I can only speak for Stirling, and thank goodness for that.

Mr. Maxton: Not for long.

Mr. Forsyth: While the Labour party presents people who are responsible for high rates, which destroy not only businesses, but families who must sell their homes because they cannot pay their rates, the hon. Gentleman may well have to wait a long time for the new dawn that he sees.
The fact that the Labour party has tabled this new clause tells me that it has already accepted that it will lose the general election. If it thought that it would win, the new clause would not be necessary. It can see the writing on the wall, so the hon. Gentleman must not be so confident.

Mr. Wallace: Does the fact that the hon. Gentleman is bemoaning the inclusion of a "volunteer" local authority not imply that he has little confidence of the Conservatives winning control of Stirling district council? Obviously, if they won in 1988, they would have plenty of time to volunteer before 1989–90.

Mr. Forsyth: I have every confidence that if we have a community charge, where everyone who casts a vote in these elections knows that he will have to pay something towards services, the present administration of Stirling district council will be thrown out of office. That is why I passionately support the introduction of this Bill and why I am opposed to there being an experiment. The experiment would certainly not include Stirling because the Labour administration in Stirling knows that if it were made accountable, it would be out on its neck.
We should consider the new clause on its merits, but reject the idea of an experiment. I find one aspect interesting. Whichever area of Scotland is lucky enough to be the experimental area for the introduction of a community charge, what will happen there? First, business men will fall over themselves to set up in business in that area because they can plan ahead, knowing that they will not face a substantial rate increase. They will not face the 16 per cent. rate increase that Central region will impose.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point, I shall gladly give way.
The businesses will know that they can escape the Central region rate increase of 16·6 per cent. That has been reduced from a 20 per cent. increase, proposed at a time

when its rate support grant has been increased by 10 per cent. They can escape the rate increases in Strathclyde and rate increases of 30 per cent. or more in Lothian.

Mr. Maxton: I wish the hon. Gentleman would read the new clause, which makes no reference to non-domestic rates. It relates to the abolition of domestic rates in one district and the introduction of a community charge. I do not quite understand how the hon. Gentleman can, therefore, make points about businesses in relation to the new clause.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's whole problem is that he does not quite understand. If he looks at the Labour party's amendments, he will find that his party has tabled an amendment later to get rid of clause 4 which deals with non-domestic rates because it wishes to remove that protection entirely. He must not anticipate the decisions of the House.
If we have an experimental area, businesses will rush into it, secure in the knowledge that they can plan ahead and will not be faced with severe, sudden, unexpected rate increases which have destroyed, not only businesses throughout Scotland, but jobs. Young couples seeking housing will know that they can buy a house in that area and not be subjected to sudden, unexpected costs on top of their mortgage payments, for which they have not budgeted.
Distortions would be created which would ultimately be reflected in house and business prices. Presumably, the distortions would be reversed suddenly if the experiment were extended to cover the whole of Scotland. That would undoubtedly cause great hardship and difficulty to those who live in the area and on its boundaries. Therefore, the proposition is not practicable, but it would certainly display the advantage of a community charge.
5.15 pm
I am surprised at the alliance amendment to the new clause. I expected the alliance to suggest having an experimental area for local income tax. Even at this late stage—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It would not have been in order.

Mr. Forsyth: The alliance had an opportunity on Second Reading to do that when, during a half hour speech, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) told us that he was just going to deal with local income tax, but never got there. We had to listen to the hon. Gentleman for goodness knows how many hours in Committee and he was asked goodness knows how many times to outline the alliance's local income tax scheme, but he never got there.

Sir Alex Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman refused.

Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, as my hon. Friend reminds me, the hon. Gentleman refused. Today the House has been treated to another speech from the hon. Gentleman in which he criticised the Government for not explaining in detail what their policy involves and for not having a consensus of support for their policy in Scotland which is necessary to bring forward any proposition. The hon. Gentleman and his party have used the slogan "local income tax" without defining it and giving the people of Scotland the opportunity to see what sort of system they propose.

Sir Alex Fletcher: I think the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) wants my hon. Friend to give way to him.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell us how his local income tax system will work. No, I thought not.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Wait for it.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclennan: The alliance will be delighted that the decision about the form of taxation for local government is to be left to the Scottish people to decide at the election. Our system will be related to the ability to pay; it will enhance local accountability and will be a local income tax.

Mr. Forsyth: That sounds rather like the Labour party's recent policy document in which it committed itself to ending war. The hon. Gentleman defined the characteristics of the system but was unable to say how it would work or what the system would be. How the Scottish people are expected to vote on a system which remains somewhere in the air and in the planning system of the alliance, I know not.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) sounded more like the alliance candidate who, when asked what time it was, said "What time would you like it to be, dear fellow?"

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend must not tempt me to stray. It is hard to be nasty to Liberals. A Liberal has been defined as someone who is so nice that he finds it difficult to—

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Alex Fletcher: Here is a nice Liberal.

Sir Russell Johnston: The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is that it is time the hon. Gentleman sat down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is also time that we returned to the new clause.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall not go further down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fact that the Labour party has tabled the new clause is significant, not only because it concedes the fact that the Labour party does not expect to win the general election, but because it is a change in the Labour party's position hitherto. At first, the community charge was completely unfair and unworkable. Having lost that argument in Committee, Labour Members are now asking to see how it works in practice and wondering how they can criticise it. It is odd that we have not heard much from the Labour party about how its rating system, with its proposed capital values and the rating of agricultural land and buildings, will work in practice. It is not clear from the clause whether the Labour party proposes that we should have this experiment in one area and in the rest of Scotland implement other Labour policies. If that happened, it would be interesting to see the effects. The rating of agricultural land and buildings would destroy jobs in the rural areas on a catastrophic scale.
The effect of introducing capital values for assessing rateable values would penalise the pensioners whom the Labour party has dismissed. Labour would bar them from benefiting under the community charge because pensioners are not significant in terms of total population. For the same reason Labour has dismissed the single-parent families who would benefit.
Those who suffer from capital valuation are the elderly living in homes which they have had for years and which have suddenly acquired an increased value. First-time buyers would also suffer. They would find that not only were they saddled with high mortgage payments but with high rate payments, which would be reflected in the value of the house they were trying to buy. Ironically, the people who would benefit from capital values are those who are earning good salaries and whose children have left the household. Those people would be better off, and they are not the sort of people that the Labour party usually champions.
The reason the Opposition favour capital values and rates is because it is a corrupt system from which they benefit. That is at the root of it all. They want capital values because they believe in a wealth tax and it suits the spite and envy that is central to their philosophy to implement such a system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is nodding. The hon. Gentleman may take pleasure in opinion polls. I remind him that during the revaluation crisis the BBC held a television phone-in. He may remember that. There was a row about the programme. The three systems were explained, but obviously the hon. Gentleman did not watch the programme. The systems were: local income tax, the rating system and the poll tax, as it was described. The people of Scotland phoned in to such an extent that they blew up the switchboard at Newton Stewart. I think it was about 60 per cent., but certainly the vast majority of people favoured the poll tax and the least popular system was the rating system which the hon. Gentleman espouses.
We should reject this new clause, just as the people of Scotland will reject the Labour party when they are given the opportunity and when accountability is brought back to local government.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I do not know why the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is so truculent about the proposition for an experiment in one local authority area in Scotland. His party wants to hold an experiment in 65 local authority areas. Therefore, why is he so excited about the prospect of one area which may want to volunteer for this new tax? I am sorry to hear that the last book shop in Stirling has closed, but I am puzzled about how this legislation will preserve book shops in Scotland, because it does not alter the revaluation system in the non-domestic sector. It does not guarantee that rates will not go up, whether they are in the form of a poll tax or under the present property system.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) talked about accountability. Accountability to whom? Will local authorities end up being more accountable to Government rather than to the people whom they are elected to serve? Under the Government's proposals more of the local authority income will be determined not by the poll tax ratepayers but by Ministers. They will decide matters relating to the uniform business rate, and will determine


the revenue support grant. At the end of the day the poll tax or community charge—call it what we will—will raise less money proportionately for the local authorities.
The real problem is not that local authorities will be made more accountable, for I am in favour of accountability, but that over the last six or seven years the Government have shown that they want to be less accountable for the cost of providing local authority services. That is why rates in many areas have gone up so significantly. It is a result of the continual retrenchment by the Government in paying their share of local authority services. Do not let us kid ourselves. The facts are all in Hansard in the parliamentary questions.
The hon. Member for Stirling talked about first-time buyers. It is important that they should be encouraged, but he did not dwell long on the transformation that will take place in the housing market if this poll tax is introduced. In time it will be easier for people who already have houses to move up-market. Oh for the castles; Fordell Castle. It will be much better to live there than in a wee gate house. The poll tax will have an impact on first-time buyers, too, and will make it more difficult for some of them to get into the housing market, because property values will be distorted.
One of the problems about the community charge or the poll tax is that we are dealing with it now only in theory. We are merely discussing it and people have not yet had a demand notice through the letter box, often telling them that they may have to pay a lot more. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that three quarters of the people would be better off even though they are £1 a week worse off. When I heard the hon. Gentleman say that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), "What primary school did he go to?"
The figures in the Green Paper show that a majority of people will be worse off under this system. The hon. Member for Dumfries tells us that even though some people will he £1 a week worse off they will really be better off. That is part of the Government's twisted logic over this whole business. I do not know why the Secretary of State is getting so excited about the prospect of one local authority in Scotland wanting to attempt this scheme which the Secretary of State now thinks is so marvellous. Three years ago he had a different tune because he was only an Under-Secretary then.
I purposely did not sit on the Committee, even though that meant that I missed the entertainment of seeing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) stand on his head. I was not prepared to spend hours listening to Ministers reading out speeches when three years ago when we dealt with the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill they said it could not be done. All this has changed because the civil servants in the Box have changed, and the speeches are different.
This scheme is as nonsensical now as it was when it was rejected in the Green Paper published by the Government three years' ago. As I said, I do not know why the Secretary of State is getting all worked up about the new clause. If it is such a good thing, he should not be worried about trying it out in one area.

Mr. Henderson: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). If he had been a member of the Committee, he would have been struck by the extent to which this measure stood up to parliamentary

scrutiny. My right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill to the House in an encouraging way. Those of us who recognise the difficulties of producing a substantial and radical measure to change the basis of local authority finance for years ahead clearly understood that it would run risks in standing up to parliamentary scrutiny. It is easier to defend even the indefensible status quo, such as the Labour party is doing with rating, than it is to put forward a radical new proposal.
The first and most striking aspect of the Bill is the way that in Committee it stood up not only to parliamentary scrutiny but was shown to contain proposals that the Government had thought through much more clearly than the Opposition were able to do. The muddle in which the Opposition find themselves is clearly illustrated by the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has explained to the House that the new clause is not what it purports to be, but that it suggests an experiment in the Government's proposals. In answer to a question from one of my hon. Friends I thought that I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was only a partial experiment. That illustrates the muddle and confusion among the Opposition parties during the Committee proceedings.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on the way in which he has consistently shown that the proposals have been thoroughly well thought out—

Mr. Ernie Ross: Why are there so many amendments?

Mr. Henderson: I do not believe that any experiment, total or partial, should be undertaken before the scheme is carried out.
I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for changing the implementation programme of the Bill. That change has met one of the objections causing some anxiety to local authorities.

Mr. Maxton: As the hon. Gentleman has made attacks on the Opposition and has claimed that we are confused, can he explain why, if I remember rightly, when we made the proposal in Committee he voted against it?

Mr. Henderson: Which proposal is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Maxton: To do away with the phasing out.

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has once again illustrated my argument. I suggest he studies the Committee proceedings, for he will discover that he is, yet again, wrong.
When Fife regional council discovered that COSLA was feeding information only to the Labour party in Committee it briefed me on a number of matters of concern to it. One thing that was especially emphasised by the council was the phasing in of the programme. It felt that there would be some difficulty in running the two systems side by side and getting the systems ready for the start of the operation.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a complete misrepresentation to suggest that we were opposed to introducing the system more rapidly? On the contrary, many of us spoke in favour of rapid


implementation. Certainly one of our worries was that the amendment drafted by COSLA might not be technically effective.

Mr. Henderson: As I would expect, my hon. Friend's recollections are much more precise than those of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
I believe that the change in the implementation programme will assist local authorities in their planning and preparation for the changes that will take place. At the same time, it will enable the benefits to reach domestic ratepayers in Scotland as quickly as practicable. I believe that the change will be welcomed by Fife regional council and Labour local authorities.
I welcome the fact that, during the interim phase, the rate increases that can be dumped on non-domestic ratepayers will be limited to the rise in the retail price index. Recently I tabled a parliamentary question to my right hon. and learned Friend to establish the cost of rate increases on health boards. The answer gave some extraordinary figures. Over the past 10 years, the amount of payment made by Scottish health boards, in lieu of rates on hospital premises, has risen from £8,393,000 in 1976–77 to £38·5 million in 1985–86. That is the type of burden that has been placed on vital health services in 10 years as a result of excessive rate increases by local authorities. I welcome the fact that there will be some limitation on the type of excessive increases that may be imposed on vital services for the community. There will also be a limitation on local authorities.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has been so coy in putting forward proposals for a local income tax, has not suggested in his amendment to the Labour party's new clause that there should be a local income tax experiment. The alliance says that it wishes to get rid of domestic rates, unlike the Labour party, and it has suggested how that might be done. I would have thought it reasonable for the alliance to put forward a proposal on how to try out local income tax, but no such proposal has been made. Certainly no proposal has been made for testing local income tax in the areas that the alliance represents. When my hon. Friend replies perhaps he will give us some idea of the cost to different category taxpayers of a local income tax in the areas represented by the alliance.

Mr. Maclennan: Whereas the poll tax is a tax that has not been tried in any other modern country and was probably operated only in the most primitive societies—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: What about Japan?

Mr. Maclennan: It is not operated in Japan. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Japan has a system of rebated taxation and that is similar to a local income tax. Local income tax is a system of local taxation that operates in many countries and there is no need for experimentation.

Mr. Henderson: In that case I am even more surprised that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to explain that system either to the Committee or to the House this afternoon.
I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to proceed as speedily as possible with the proposals. In time I believe that they will prove of benefit to all Scottish people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I shall reply briefly to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) was accused by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) of having voted against the amendment to
leave out 1992–93 and insert 1989–90".
The amendment was described by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) as a probing amendment. The final part of that debate ends with the words:
Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 280, 284.]
I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East was far out in what he said about the Opposition's confusion.
Some hon. Members have been shouting about all the amendments down on the Notice Paper. I believe that such amendments are a sign that the Bill has been well scrutinised in Committee. As a result of the Committee proceedings, we have come forward with amendments to the Bill that are designed to improve it, in line with discussions in Committee. I am rather surprised to discover that Opposition Members feel that that is the wrong way to proceed. It gives a strange view of the Opposition's interpretation of what a Committee stage is all about.
With regard to the general points raised in the debate, I have some difficulty with the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because, effectively, he said nothing. On this occasion, he did not even say it very well. In his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) he gave us a great insight into the policies of the alliance regarding local government finance. He confirmed that the alliance was in favour of a local income tax. He then said that he did not wish to give further details because the alliance wanted the Scottish people to decide what type of local taxation they wanted. However, he went on to say that, once the Scottish people had decided, they would get a local income tax system whether they liked it or not. I rather suspect that the reason why the hon. Gentleman takes refuge in such comments is that he knows as well as I that, if he studies how local income tax works in practice, he will see that those to whom his party is aiming its propaganda would pay far more under that system than they would under a community charge system. Now is not the occasion to deal with those figures, but perhaps, during the course of the two days' debate, we will have the opportunity to consider them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) rightly referred to the present and proposed level of rate increase. One of the best justifications for introducing the community charge as soon as possible is that increases of the type that we are now witnessing would become less likely were there greater accountability.
It is legitimate to ask, in looking at the proposed rate increases that we are seeing reported in the papers, of 30 per cent. or 19 per cent., whether local authorities would have proposed such increases if they had known that, instead of just a minority of the electorate being required to pay for these decisions, the totality of their electorate


would have to pay. My judgment is that if that were the case, we would not see such increases. That underlines the need to introduce the new system as soon as possible.
Equally, in the situation that the Bill will create, where over a period the existing system begins to disappear whereby the non-domestics pay £2 for every £1 paid by the domestics, it is legitimate to ask whether local authorities would be prepared to put the total burden of their excess expenditure over assessed need on to the totality of their electorate. Again, I very much doubt whether they would.
If ever there has been a justification for what is taking place in the Bill, it is the type of rate increases that we are seeing and that are being announced in certain areas of Scotland. It is all very well for Labour Members to say that this is all to do with the rate support grant. This year, there has been a generous rate support settlement. If the argument that Opposition Members have adduced time after time during rate support grant debates have been correct, we would have expected low rate increases across Scotland, if any increase at all.

Mr. Maxton: We have had them.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should visit Lothian, Edinburgh and Stirling to see whether that is the view of the ratepayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood is right to point to these increases as justification for not having any unnecessary delay in the implementation of the community charge. I listened with some care to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). At one stage, he said that rates were a politically accountable tax. That is a fascinating statement.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister just said that.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech, he will see that I referred to the accountability that will be created by a community charge, and made the point that, when only a minority have to bear the burden of local authority expenditure decisions, there is no accountability.
In a system such as the present rate system, where only 29 per cent. of the electorate pay full rates and only another 10 per cent. of the electorate make any contribution to rates, can Opposition Members suggest that that is an accountable system?

Mr. Home Robertson: We have a problem here. The Minister thinks that if he can get away with telling half the truth often enough, someone will believe it. I refer to a written answer that he gave me, in which he said:
Of the 4 million people eligible to vote in the 1986 regional and islands council elections, 49 per cent. were domestic ratepayers and 30 per cent. were spouses of domestic ratepayers."—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 180.]
That comes to 79 per cent. Is that a minority?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman said that 49 per cent. were ratepayers. He is right. I spoke of 39 per cent., which is the percentage that pays rates. Another 10 per cent. pay but are fully rebated and pay no rates. Is a system accountable in which just over one third of the electorate have to pay for spending decisions of authorities?
I ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West again whether a system which demands £2 from the non-domestic ratepayer with no vote for every £1 from the domestic ratepayer who at least has a vote can be described as accountable. I find that hard to believe. It

explains the Labour party's views of accountability in democracy, which we had so much difficulty in trying to understand in Committee.

Mr. Douglas: I would not, and I should have thought that the Minister would not, rest an argument for accountability only, or even in some cases mainly, on voting patterns. An important element of accountability is what discussions about the system take place in the media and elsewhere. One of the reasons why we have had these changes is that the media and other organs of public opinion have raised this important issue in politically accountable terms. Perhaps the Minister does not like a free press.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the media for pointing out some of the excesses taking place in local government. I am sure that that is good for the democratic process. No system of democracy is accountable under which those who are deciding what should be spent and raised can ignore the effect that it will have on those who will pay because they are a minority.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister address himself to the point which he at no time answered in Committee? By his own figures, local authorities in Scotland, if the Bill goes through, will have control over only 13 per cent.—a marginal amount — of the expenditure of local authorities. How can the Minister say that that is enhancing local authority accountability?

Mr. Ancram: I have been fascinated by this argument, which the hon. Gentleman put forward in Committee. He knows as well as I do that the only area of direct contact between an elector — a local taxpayer — and a local authority where accountability can be created is within the 13 per cent. He suggests that there is greater accountability in raising taxes from non-domestic ratepayers who have no vote. In any argument on democracy, that would be a hard line to pursue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to say that the new clause is a delaying tactic and that the people in Scotland now want to know when the new system is coming in. They believe that it is a good system and that we need to get on with its introduction. That is what we shall be discussing when we come to the first set of amendments on the first few clauses. I welcome the support that my hon. Friend has given.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling and for Fife, North-East for referring to the effect that rates have on jobs. It is often forgotten in these debates, when we are talking about the individual local taxpayer, that rates have a severe economic effect, and we shall be seeing that economic effect in certain parts of Scotland over the next few months. It is part of the debate and a justification for introducing the new system which we shall do as soon as possible.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I believe that the new clause is simply unworkable. If the hon. Member for Cathcart considered what would be created by his new clause, for which he made great claims, he might agree that it would be unworkable. First, it cannot simply be left to industry. The system proposed under the Bill would necessitate close involvement by the appropriate regional council because the regions are the


levying authorities for the community charge. The region would have the complex task of levying and collecting the community charge in one district, while having to collect rates in the others. Given the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart about the difficulty of running two systems in tandem, I should have thought that that was a serious objection to the new clause.
It is also difficult to see how this would make it possible for anything worth while to emerge from the pilot scheme. The results would be seriously distorted, depending on the areas in which it took place in Scotland and what was happening next door. Nor is it clear on what basis the region would be able to decide the level of the community charge that it wished to set for the district in question, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) did not address himself to that point. Moreover, it would be impossible for the pilot scheme as proposed to test adequately the new grant arrangements in the Bill or the new basis for paying for water and sewerage. It may have been a hook on which to hang a debate, but as a proposal that could be put into action, it is unworkable.
The new clause is based on the principle of experimentation. I am surprised that this has suddenly become an element of Opposition thinking. If they introduced a new tax, would they do so on an experimental basis in one area?

Mr. Maxton: Wealth tax.

Mr. Ancram: If a future Labour Government were to introduce a wealth tax, would they do it only in the Berwickshire district to see whether they could catch the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)? It is nonsense to suggest that a general tax can be introduced on an experimental basis in one area, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members understand that.
The new clause is about procrastination and delay. Opposition Members have not been able, on Second Reading, in Committee or in this debate, to get to grips with anything that they can say is wrong with the Bill. That is why they seek to delay it and why I ask my hon. Friends to resist the new clause.

Mr. Maxton: In the last two minutes of the Minister's speech, we at long last heard something about the new clause. Every other Conservative Member ranged widely over the whole Bill, and, to some extent, they were right to do so. The experiment would show how the Bill would work and would give us a chance to reinforce the many arguments that we advanced in Committee. It would demonstrate the absolute failure of the Government to justify what they are doing on any grounds. Instead, they have resorted to telling half-truths and mistruths—I am not allowed to use stronger language in the Chamber—to get their case across.
I shall start with the issue of accountability and the 29 per cent. of people who pay rates.

Mr. Ancram: Full rates.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister now says full rates. I shall deal with the matter bit by bit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to an answer from the Minister which stated that 49 per cent. of people were liable to pay rates and that another 30 per cent. were the spouses of

those who pay rates. That makes 79 per cent — [Interruption.] The Minister claims that 49 per cent. is a minority. However, clause 10 (6) states:
Persons married to each other shall be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charges for which they are liable.
In other words, if my wife is not employed, I have to pay her community charge. What is the difference between that and saying that my wife bears some responsibility for paying my rates? The two arguments are the same.
The fact is that 79 per cent. of people are liable to pay rates now. Certainly there are rebates — some people receive a total rebate—but how will the Government bring about that accountability? How will they make large numbers of widows, single parents and so on accountable? How will they increase the number of people to be made accountable, to use their phrase? Of course, they will do so by ensuring that everyone in the country over the age of 18, whatever his income and however poor he is, will pay at least 20 per cent.
The Minister has never told us how many people would pay the poll tax in full if non-working wives, whose husbands pay it for them, and those who now receive full and partial rebates were excluded. I do not believe that that would amount to a majority of people who would be eligible to pay the poll tax. The Minister has consistently fudged that issue and told half-truths, mistruths and untruths about it. If I were in another debating chamber with different rules, that is not the language that I would use to describe what the Minister has been doing.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be complaining that husbands and wives are jointly and severally liable to pay the community charge, but he moved the amendment in Committee that provided for precisely that.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is being his usual pathetic self. He cannot follow an argument and is incapable of seeing the logic in anything that anyone says. He always twists the logic to fit his distorted views.
I made no attempt to suggest that joint and several liability was wrong. I said that the same rules apply under the present rating system as will apply under the new system. That is right now and will be right then, but that does not detract from my argument. The hon. Gentleman should listen for a change, instead of having his mind full of his normal stupid undemocratic prejudices.
The proposals are not entirely the brainchild of the hon. Gentleman—that is a misuse of the term brain—but they are to some extend his child. The reason why the hon. Member for Stirling has consistently put forward this idea is that he does not believe in democracy. He does not believe in the democratic process working in Scotland. The local authority in his constituency is Labour controlled. He loathes Stirling district council and Central regional council and he will do anything to take them out of the control of the Labour party, including introducing this unfair tax.
In putting forward this idea, the Conservative party is showing its arrogance. Although the Government do not have a majority in Scotland, they have brought forward the proposals as if they had the support of the Scottish people. I see that the Secretary of State is smiling. Unlike other hon. Members I have consistently supported devolution, and I am not prepared to sell my principles for high office. That is exactly what the Secretary of State did;


he resigned from a post of junior spokesman over devolution, but when real power came along he was into the Scottish Office before his feet could touch the ground. He would do anything for high office.

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way because this is a short debate.

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Conservative Members are undemocratic, but it was a Labour Member who used undemocratic means to stop the Committee going about its business, even though he was not a member of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Matters of this kind are not for me.

Mr. Maxton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fact is that the Conservative party has not had a majority in Scotland since 1964, but it has ruled without one since 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, we are not even using the mandate argument. We are simply asking the Government to take that into account when they use Scotland as a test bed for the rest of the country. That is why we are suggesting that there should be an experiment in only one part of Scotland. The Government have no support there and will have even less after the next general election. In that regard, the silliest speech that I have heard in a long time was made by the Secretary of State last weekend.
We have heard a great deal about how this is a fairer tax. Whether or not that is so will emerge from the experiment. The only way in which the Government can possibly claim that widows, single parents on supplementary benefit—either now or in the future—or single old-age pensioners will benefit is by comparing what will happen in 1989 with what happens in 1988. A widow living on supplementary benefit or a widow's pension, or an old-age pensioner or a young single unemployed person, or a single parent will all be worse off.
At present, none of them pays rates, because they are all fully rebated. It is the Government's miserable scheme under the Social Security Act to make them pay that 20 per cent. that allows the Government to claim that those people will be better off. That is the only way that the Government can do it. But those people will not be better off, and the people of Scotland had better be aware of that. They should ask themselves, "Will I, as a single, old-age pensioner living alone in a council house in Castlemilk, be better off in 1989 than I am in 1987?" The answer, of course, will be, "No. At present I pay nothing; in 1989 I shall be paying £1 a week in poll tax."
Only yesterday, I received a letter from a constituent living in Clarkston road. It was very well written; the writer obviously has an income and pays rates. She lives in a room with a kitchen and an outside toilet, and at present she is a single householder—probably an elderly lady, although she does not say so. She currently pays £106 in rates, but under the community charge she will pay £276. She receives no rebate on the rates, and we must assume that she will not receive any on the community charge either. Fewer people are likely to be rebated on the community charge than at present, because that is the effect of the Social Security Act.
One of the constant cries — we have heard it again from the Secretary of State—has been that it is unfair

that a widow living alone in a big house left to her by her husband, whose family has gone away, has to pay the same rates as a family of five working adults living down the road. Let me give an example. I asked the regional council to give me some figures for the rateable values in Quadrant road in my constituency. It is a good area, with nice houses and high rateable values. In that short road I found two people living alone in big houses and two other houses with five people in each. It was interesting to discover that last year a widow living in one of those houses paid £1,520 in rates — an enormous burden for a single person—while five people living in a house just down the road paid almost exactly the same amount. The sums were marginally different because the rateable values differed slightly.
What would happen if a poll tax were introduced in that area? We would assume that the widow paying £1,520 a year would be considerably better off: she would pay only £276, and therefore save £24 a week. If the Government's argument is right, that saving should be paid for by the five working people in the other house. However, if we multiply £276 by five, that totals only £1,380, so that household will also be saving money. Those five working people will be better off under the poll tax.
Who then will be paying that £24 a week? Other widows in Castlemilk will be paying it; the poor will be paying not the rich. The poll tax is not about helping single people, but about helping people who are already well off with good salaries and wages.
An experiment would be very worth while. It would allow us to see exactly how the system would work, and would illustrate the unfairness of someone in Castlemilk paying exactly the same as someone living in Newlands. It would show the nonsense of the administrative arrangements, and we could see whether registration would work.
I feel that there may be flaws in the system. If the Minister had felt able to say, "We agree with the notion of an experiment, in principle" — incidentally, the Secretary of State did not even mention that in his speech—we should be prepared to withdraw the new clause. We consider it essential that such an experiment should take place in one area so that we can show what nonsense the system will be.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 246.

Division No. 107]
[6.05 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clay, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Clelland, David Gordon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Conlan, Bernard


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)






Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dewar, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick
Nellist, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Faulds, Andrew
Park, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Parry, Robert


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Patchett, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pavitt, Laurie


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Forrester, John
Radice, Giles


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Foulkes, George
Raynsford, Nick


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Redmond, Martin


Freud, Clement
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, J. W.


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gourlay, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Sheerman, Barry


Hancock, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hardy, Peter
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Howells, Geraint
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tinn, James


Kennedy, Charles
Torney, Tom


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wainwright, R.


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Lambie, David
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leighton, Ronald
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
White, James


Litherland, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Livsey, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, Gordon


Loyden, Edward
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Woodall, Alec


Maclennan, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Ray Powell and


Martin, Michael
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy





NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Ashby, David
Baldry, Tony





Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hind, Kenneth


Best, Keith
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Holt, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howard, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Irving, Charles


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jackson, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Browne, John
Jessel, Toby


Bruinvels, Peter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Budgen, Nick
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Key, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knowles, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Conway, Derek
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Simon
Latham, Michael


Cope, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lee, John (Pendle)


Critchley, Julian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
McCrindle, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Farr, Sir John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Favell, Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, David John


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Madel, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Major, John


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Fry, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Galley, Roy
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Sir Carol


Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorst, John
Merchant, Piers


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Gregory, Conal
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Norris, Steven


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Harvey, Robert
Osborn, Sir John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Heddle, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Henderson, Barry
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hickmet, Richard
Pollock, Alexander


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hill, James
Powley, John






Price, Sir David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Terlezki, Stefan


Rathbone, Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trippier, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walters, Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Silvester, Fred
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Spencer, Derek
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

EMPLOYEES IN TIED ACCOMMODATION

'All public authorities concerned with the employment of employees in tied accommodation, including statutory wages councils, shall increase the minimum rate of wages for employees who live in tied accommodation in 1989 and in subsequent years by an amount that is sufficient to compensate the average employee's household for their liability for the average level of community charge in Scotland for the year in question, in addition to any other increase that the Board may determine:.—[Mr. Home Robertson]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 8—Community Charge exemption or reduction for special cases—
'No one in any of the following categories shall be obliged to pay more to any local authority under the Community Charge System than what they would have to pay under the rating system in force immediately prior to the enactment of this Act.
(1) Recipients of supplementary benefit or supplementary pension.
(2) Recipients of family income supplement.
(3) Full time students, including student nurses.'.

Mr. Home Robertson: We did not have an opportunity to debate this new clause in Committee because of the guillotine, so I welcome the fact that I can say something about this important issue.
A substantial number of people will be made worse off by the introduction of this poll tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) pointed out at the conclusion of the last debate, a significant number, of people will be better off—many of whom are in the same circumstances as some hon. Members— but it is worth highlighting the fact that a significant number of people will be penalised by this tax. It is important to dwell on the categories of people who might fall into this trap.
This new clause is designed to highlight the extra impact of the tax on people who live in various forms of tied housing. I shall concentrate, initially, on agricultural tied houses, which are now almost unique to Scotland. The agricultural tied housing system was effectively dismantled for England and Wales by the last Labour Government, and it will be a high priority for the next Labour Administration to undertake a similar reform of this pernicious system in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who has responsibility for agriculture—who was muttering under his breath just now—told me on 13 January, in a written reply, that it is estimated that out of 21,000 regular hired workers in Scottish agriculture about 14,000 occupied tied cottages, of whom 11,000 have their rates paid by the farmers.
There are therefore 11,000 households scattered through rural Scotland whose rates are paid as a business expense by the employer. The Bill would transform that property tax into a personal tax relating to the occupiers of those houses. Farm workers and their families will have to cope with a cost which they have not experienced before. It might be £500 for a couple and £1,000 or more for a couple with children over 18.
We are talking about some of the lower-paid people in Scotland. The average earnings of farm workers in the United Kingdom during 1986, according to the current annual review of agriculture, was estimated to he only £139·70 for a 46·3 hour week. That average conceals a significant number of even more lowly paid people. The current Scottish Agricultural Wages Board Wages Order says that the minimum wage for a tractor man can be as low as £104·65 for an employee over the age of 20—and only £84·92 for an employee aged 18 — for a 40-hour week. The order also says that up to 93p per week can be deducted from those basic rates when a tied house is provided.
People on very low incomes who live in rural areas where the cost of living tends to be high could not afford to pay this extra tax unless their wages were increased accordingly. The new clause would require the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board to increase the basic wages of people concerned to compensate workers for the effect of the tax. We believe that that is the right approach.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) who, like me, is a farmer said in Committee that he would pay his employees' poll tax for them. I read a report in a fascinating newspaper called Big Farm Weekly of 19 February which implied that farmers would be expected to pay their employees' poll tax directly, just as


they now pay their rates. That raises several questions. How many of the household would be covered? If an employee has several people aged over 18 living in a tied house, would the employer be required to pay for all of them? Would the arrangement take account of eligibility for rebates?
The Scottish Office is quoted in the same article as having told the National Farmers Union of Scotland that the employer would become the responsible person, presumably under clause 19, but that clause makes the farmer responsible for furnishing information to the registration officer rather than for paying the tax. The same report conveys the alarm of farmers in Scotland at the prospect of having to pay £16 million for employees' poll tax instead £4·6 million which is what they are paying now for rates on farm cottages.
I fear that some unscrupulous employers will accept the abolition of domestic rates as a windfall, reduce their costs accordingly and leave their employees to pay the new tax. It is possible with the poll tax that employees on relatively low wages and who have grown up children living with them could pay more tax to the local authority than their employers.
The change will have a bearing on many long-standing employment contracts and no less a body than the Scottish Landowners' Federation has raised another interesting facet of the problem. It says in its submission :
The present Bill has important implications for occupiers of tied housing and their employers. Currently it is normal practice for employers to pay the rates for tied houses occupied by their employees. Such people will become personally liable for the proposed Community Charge, but, so that their financial position will not be prejudiced, they will expect their employers to pay the Charge.
So far, so good. The federation continues :
The danger here would be that this payment, if made by the employer, might be treated as a benefit in kind by the Inland Revenue and therefore taxable. Rates now paid by employers in such situations are not so treated by virtue of Section 33(4) of the Finance Act, 1977. Ministers must be urged to give the necessary assurances that similar tax arrangements will be applied in respect of the Community Charge.
I am a litle less concerned about the liability of landowners to tax than I am about the effect of these proposals on farm workers' incomes. The Government ought to respond to that.
I invite the Minister to explain the Government's intentions with regard to farm workers and employees in other industries or services which still have the tied housing system. We are considering a wide range of activities, including school caretakers, ministers of religion, lighthouse keepers, coast guards and a host of others. It has, unfortunately, not been possible to deal on Report with the Bill's effect on crofters" but we know that 13,600 crofters are to lose long-standing tax relief. We deplore that.
Another group of people will find themselves brought into the new poll tax net although they have not previously paid local taxation. I refer to personnel in the armed forces resident in barracks and other military premises in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces gave me an interesting written reply yesterday in which he said :
Contributions in lieu of rates are made in respect of property deemed to be in the occupation of the Crown. Such payments are the responsibility of the rating of Government

Property department. Approximately 14,550 service and 500 Ministry of Defence civilian personnel are living in such property in Scotland."—[Official Report, 3 March 1987.]
It emerges that 15,050 service men, excluding the Americans at Holy loch—who also will have to pay—will find that they have to pay poll tax of £250 a year. This raises the interesting prospect of the community charge registration officer having to locate, register and publish a rolling register of every service man in every military base in Scotland. Such a public register is likely to contain some interesting classified material which might well be of interest to foreign powers. I wonder whether the Minister has had an opportunity to think about that aspect of this curious Bill.
What about compensating service men for the extra cost, which will apply only to those who are serving in Scotland? In reply to a question which I tabled on Monday 23 February, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces said :
The implications of the proposed community charge for service personnel in Scotland are currently under consideration by my Department. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as we have reached a conclusion."—[Official Report, 23 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 150.]
I suspect that 15,050 service men will be interested to know what will happen.
The examples that I have given reveal the lack of thought and preparation that characterises the Bill. It is essential to recognise the special effect of the poll tax on people who live in tied accommodation.

Sir Hector Monro: This is an important issue. I should have thought that service men would be covered by some form of block arrangement for each military establishment.

Mr. Home Robertson: ; Is it?

Sir Hector Monro: I should think so. Mr. Home Robertson: It is not.

Sir Hector Monro: I am entitled to my view and I think that I am right.
The more important part of new clause 2 concerns tied cottages. There are swings and roundabouts. Most modernised cottages — I hope that most are now modernised—will pay between £200 and £400 in rates. In Dumfries and Galloway, we anticipate a community charge of about £175. The present level of rates is therefore not so far removed from two community charges. I should have thought that most farmers would anticipate paying two community charges for a tied house and that a working third or more person should pay the community charge himself. We will have the rebate system for people who are not working.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will, I suspect, find that most farmhouses pay less under the present scheme than they would in two community charges, and that charges on farmhouses and farm cottages balance out. I appreciate that some people, perhaps those in Berwickshire, will be vastly better off, but others who have more humble farmhouses in my part of the country will find that the charge for the farmhouse and that for each farm cottage on two community charges will about balance out. If the tax arrangement can be clarified, by and large agricultural communities should have no great worries over the introduction of a community charge.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support new clause 2 but wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 8, standing in my name on the Notice Paper. I am absolutely opposed to this poll tax nonsense because it is an unfair tax. It is an unfair tax because it is a regressive tax.
6.30 pm
A poor widow living in a council house, for example, could find herself having to pay as much as a millionaire living in his castle. That is unfair by anyone's standards.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman will pay less.

Mr. Canavan: It is about time that the Government started admitting that the majority of people in Scotland will be worse off. Even the Government admit that the majority of households—52 per cent.—will be worse off. If we translate that into numbers of people, the percentage who will be worse off is considerably more than 52 per cent. Among that 52 per cent. of households will be the special categories that were mentioned specifically in my new clause such as people on low incomes, pensioners on supplementary pension and other people who receive a supplementary benefit, such as the long-term unemployed and students and student nurses, who are on very low grants, or who, in some cases, receive no grant from the Government. At present many of those people pay no local tax. They pay no rates to any local authority, either because they are not the owners or tenants of any eligible properties, such as many students and student nurses, or because, in other cases, they recieve 100 per cent. rate rebate.
The Government will apparently eventually come out with some rebate scheme under this poll tax system, but they are being secretive about it. The details of the rebate scheme seem to be as big a secret as Zircon. I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security will be responsible for laying the appropriate statutory instrument, or whatever, to give full details of the rebate scheme.
However, whatever scheme the Government have up their sleeves, it seems that everyone will have to pay something and that no one will receive 100 per cent. poll tax rebate. The minimum percentage payment will be 20 per cent. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. In other words, the maximum rebate that anyone can get from paying poll tax would amount to 80 per cent.
The Scottish Office figures — which some hon. Members may believe and some may not—state what the poll tax would be in various areas. I notice that in Falkirk district, part of which I represent, the proposed poll tax would be £190 per year, according to the Government figures. That means that a full-time student, for example, at Falkirk college of technology or a student nurse at Falkirk royal infirmary or a pensioner on supplementary pension eking out a living, who perhaps at present receives 100 per cent. rate rebate, will find himself or herself having to pay at least £38 per year. I suppose that that is not much to the heir to the Marquis of Lothian, but to a poor student or to a poor pensioner £38 per year is a considerable sum.
Is it fair to levy that additional tax on people such as pensioners, the long-term unemployed on supplementary benefit and students? We have seen a 20 per cent. reduction in real terms in student grants since the Government took power, and the abolition of the minimum grant means that many students receive no grant. Therefore, they will have

to pay at least £38 per year if they happen to he resident in Falkirk district. In many other areas they will pay considerably more.
I ask the House to support my new clause. The poll tax is an attack on the living standards of many people on low incomes, including those in the special categories that are mentioned in my new clause. It is unfair to levy this additional tax burden on low income groups to assist the Government to give what, in effect, is a tax handout to rich people living in big houses.
My amendment will give some protection to those low income groups. What my new clause boils down to is that, under the new system of poll tax, the people in those special categories would not have to pay any more than what they are at present paying under the rating system. In other words, if they receive 100 per cent. rate rebate, they will pay nothing. If they pay no rates because they do not own or lease property., people in these special categories will continue to pay nothing under the poll tax system. If at present they receive a 50 per cent. rate rebate, they will simply pay the equivalent amount in poll tax. Therefore, my new clause would at least be a damage limitation exercise in that it would be of considerable benefit to many people on low incomes.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend is talking about a considerable number of people. In my constituency alone about 17,000 people are receiving supplementary benefit. Therefore, he is talking about a massive number of people, is he not?

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is quite right. Perhaps the Government statisticians could give us a fairly accurate estimate of the number of people who would be affected, but many people in Scotland will be affected. The high unemployment caused by this Government means that there is a high number of people on supplementary benefit. There is also a large number of pensioners on supplementary pension. The Government are always boasting that there are more students in full-time education than there have ever been in Scotland's history, but that is a fat lot of good if the Government are taking more money out of their pockets, and that is precisely what they are proposing to do under the Bill. Therefore, my new clause would be of considerable benefit to old-age pensioners, to the long-term unemployed and their families and also to students. I ask the House to support me.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West, (Mr. Canavan) chooses to ignore the fact that provision will be made for all of those whom he has listed in his new clause. On first examination his new clause is tempting. It makes one think that perhaps no provision has been made in the legislation, but of course he knows that that is not so. However, there is also the aspect that perhaps people in all of those categories should become much more aware, in some way or other, of what is happening at local government level and take some real interest in it. Perhaps this measure will have some impact on the numbers who vote at local elections.
If we can encourage an increase in the present ghastly low turnout, by whatever means, even if it is simply by a tax, it will mean that a change in the system is making those individuals begin to take note of what is happening in local government. Perhaps that will be the positive side to this.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is being insulting to many people, such as old-age pensioners on supplementary benefit, who take an active interest in what is happening in local government and who do turn out at the ballot box. Thankfully, very few of them will vote for the hon. Gentleman when they do.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is jumping in with his feet in a manner that shows that he was not listening to what I was saying. I never specifically sorted out any particular group to suggest that they did not vote. I said that the derisory turnout at local government elections was such that anything that made individuals take at least more note of what was happening at local government level and take a real interest in it must benefit democracy. The hon. Gentleman will please not put into my mouth words that were not there.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that £38 was a great deal of money to many people, and he was right. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the difference between the community charge for Falkirk and that for Stirling would be rather more than £38 because of the high-spending policies of Stirling district council?

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If one has no money, £38 is a fortune. If one has £38, one wants to hold on to it and not give it away. Unfortunately, some local authorities are determined to take away £38, or a lot more. I hope that that will change because, for the first time in a long time, local government finance is being carefully considered.
New clause 2 is about workers in tied accommodation. It is right that that aspect should be considered in relation to local authority finance. Of course, one would be worried if all people were to be substantially worse off, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) explained that there would be swings and roundabouts. Most of the people concerned would be living in modernised accommodation. I certainly hope that farm workers in tied cottages live in modernised premises, given the substantial public funds which have been poured into bringing those cottages up to date. I hope that everyone will take advantage of that. I have not found one cottage for farmworkers in my constituency that has not been modernised, although they may exist somewhere. There will be a benefit to some from this measure and a substantial benefit to those in high rates areas.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that about 16,000 people in the services in Scotland are affected by the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had ever attempted to study what goes on in the services, he would know that they are accustomed to local compensation being provided wherever people are posted. It used to be called the local overseas allowance and other names, depending on where the posting was. [Interruption.] One can always tell those individuals who have never been in the services because they laugh at things that make no sense to them. I assure them that it was never funny if one was living in a part of the world where costs were high. The services have always taken those costs into account.

Dr. Godman: Speaking as a former service man, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would expect service men who were transferred to Scotland from a base in, say, the

south of England to receive from the Army, Navy or Royal Air Force a supplementary allowance to pay the community charge.

Mr. Walker: I should not wish to pre-judge that issue. [Interruption.] I should not. It may be done on a block basis. That is the only reason why I should not like to prejudge it. This is always amusing to some hon. Members, but the service men are a large proportion of the voting electorate.

Dr. Godman: Hence my question.

Mr. Walker: I am coming to the answer. But I am referring also to some of the rather amusing asides by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. The services could use allowances as one means of compensating service men. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be pleased to know that there are precedents for that. The services are accustomed to dealing with these matters. They have the machinery and the methods to deal with them, and I am confident that they will find the right answers.
If service men, whoever they are and wherever they are, are using local facilities, it is right that they should be aware that it is paid for, however that is done. That assists with accountability., For that reason, I hope that service men will all vote in local elections.
The two new clauses are unnecessary because provision has already been made in the Bill to take care of these matters. I am confident that they will not be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Ancram: This has been a short but useful debate. I listened carefully to the arguments in support of some form of special arrangement to meet the position whereby workers living in tied houses, who at present have their accommodation provided rent and rates free, will be faced with liability for the personal community charge. I remind the House that the personal community charge is, as we have debated at some length in Committee, a personal liability rather than a liability tied to the occupation of a particular property. Each individual will therefore be expected to meet his or her personal community charge bill. Of course, there is nothing in the system to prevent anyone from paying another person's personal community charge liability on his or her behalf, but that is in no sense part of the formal system as we envisage it, and we propose that, in the interests of perceptibility of personal community charge payments, individual demand notices should be sent to all those liable.
It will therefore be for employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out, to decide whether to take any account of the personal community charge liability of workers in tied houses in considering the minimum wage that they set for 1989–90 and subsequent years. I should, however, point out that any such arrangements would by no means be straightforward. If an argument is to be developed that employers should thus meet the personal community charge liability of their employees living in tied accommodation, I can only envisage that they may also come under pressure to make similar arrangements in relation to employees who do not live in tied accommodation but who will nevertheless equally find themselves with a new personal community charge


liability. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how far any such compensation would go. The new clause suggests that "the average employee's household" should be compensated, but does that include adult children who may have jobs entirely unconnected with their parents' work? That is a valid question.
Service men were mentioned in this debate and in Committee. If registration would cause a security risk—this point was raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—service men could be exempted under clause 30. We debated this at some length during the latter stages of the Committee deliberations, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has happy recollections of that. Clause 30(2) says that persons who are
within such class or classes of person as may be prescribed
shall be exempt from liability. Obviously, that power would be available if a security risk were involved.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister says that there is scope under subsection (2) for certain categories of people to be left out of the tax altogether. That is a rather curious principle. If it were used for service men, 15,000 people could be lifted out of liability. On the security point, would it not make more sense simply to ensure that these people are left off the public register but are still charged the tax?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must decide what his line is. He suggested earlier that registration of service men and the fact that service men would become liable to pay the community charge could, in certain circumstances, create a security risk. If that were the case, there is provision in the legislation to exempt such service men for what I presume would be a very good reason under the terms which the hon. Gentleman has described. I know that we are not in Committee now, but the hon. Gentleman must decide, on certain occasions at least, when he gets the answer which he appears to be seeking, to appear gracious rather than to change direction immediately and to avoid the argument that he originally put.
As for service men in general, the extension of the new burden will depend on what service men pay for accommodation now. The Ministry of Defence will have to look at this as it considers the new scheme's implications.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister is trying to be helpful. Will he clarify the position as to representations by the Scottish Office to the Ministry of Defence on, for instance, accommodation in the Dunfermline area, where there are many married quarters? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made the point that the Ministry of Defence is well used to paying local overseas allowances and so on. The passage of the Bill is well advanced. It is important to district councils such as Dunfermline and regional councils such as Fife to ascertain what is likely to be done. At present, personnel quite rightly use the available education services and so on in their areas. How are local authorities and service men to be compensated?

Mr. Ancram: At the risk of going into some of the more detailed parts of the Bill, I shall explain the procedures as they might be likely to operate. First, the registration officer must decide who is solely or mainly resident at an address. In the case of service men, that decision may not always be straightforward. By the nature of their jobs, service men tend to move around. That will always be a matter of fact and circumstance. The extent of liability

cannot be judged at this distance. It will be a matter of the judgment of the registration officer, subject, obviously, to appeal to the sheriff about who is solely or mainly resident and therefore should be liable to a community charge.
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's second point for the Ministry of Defence. It is for the Ministry of Defence to decide, in the light of all the circumstances, what it wishes to do about its payments to service men. Again, the Ministry of Defence will wish to consider that matter.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, the Ministry of Defence will wish to consider that matter in the light of the circumstances at the time. Obviously, one matter that it will wish to take into account is its payments to local authorities in lieu of rates. The extent of that payment and how much it will be in future will depend on what parts of the services' property remain in the non-domestic area rather than the domestic area, which will fall out of the argument. It is impossible to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer until the circumstances of each case have been examined.

Mr. Douglas: I ask the Minister to consider the example of someone engaged in the Polaris fleet, who is out on patrol for 18 months but is still resident in Rosyth. Such complications should have been analysed by the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence. How far have they gone? The Minister has said that nothing has been done.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the fairest way in which liability to pay a charge that depends on residence is to consider the circumstances in each case. I argued in Committee — I believe that it is a correct argument—that it would be totally wrong for us to set down hard and fast rules about who should be regarded as solely or mainly resident. It will be for the registration officer to examine the position of the hon. Gentleman's submariner constituent and to decide whether the length of time that he is away effectively means that he cannot be called solely or mainly resident at his postal address. The registration officer will wish to consider that matter. It is not a matter on which I wish to pre-empt his judgment.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. Many points have been raised. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall give way to him one more time.

Dr. Godman: The Minister referred to clause 30 and to service men's possible exemption from the charge. Do I take it that service men, but not members of their families, will be exempt from the tax?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 30, he will note that it refers to persons solely or mainly resident on Crown land. He must accept that the provision for exemption will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances at the time. That point was raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian, not by myself. I merely said that the circumstances that he raised could find an answer in subsection (2) of clause 30. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.

Mr. Home Robertson: So far, so good. It is interesting to hear the Minister suggest that it may be the Government's intention to get around the problem by


exempting people under that subsection. If that exception were to be used, will the Government compensate local authorities for the loss of revenue?

Mr. Ancram: As I said earlier, at the moment there is a payment in lieu of rates on Crown properties. The extent of that payment will depend, obviously, on an adjustment between the part which, in a sense, now holds the community charge payers within it and the parts which do not. Obviously, if an exemption of that kind is made, it will be taken into account in terms of payment in lieu.
I now refer to agricultural workers. This matter is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. It was certainly the basis of the one that he tabled in Committee, but it was not reached. He knows the background to the farm workers' position—in fact, he gave some figures. About 6,000 workers in the category of farm workers do not live in tied houses. About 14,000 live in tied houses, of whom about 3,000 pay their own rates. If wages were upped right across the board, about 9,000 workers would stand to benefit for no justifiable reason—effectively, a windfall. However, a great majority of farm workers—about 90 per cent.—receive wages in excess of the minimum. The average premium for all workers is £12·62 over the minimum. If the adjustment is made only to the minimum, the figures suggest that only about 1,400 workers—7 per cent.—will be directly affected in the wages determination that the amendment seeks to provide.
Again, the hon. Gentleman perhaps has not thought through the full effect of his amendment. I am sure that, were he to do so, he would be as concerned about windfall benefits going to those who do not need them as is Brian Wilson, whom I suspect is a friend of the hon. Gentleman. He writes for West Highland Free Press. On 27 February, with reference to the crofters amendment — it was discussed in Committee, but the principle is the same as that which I now bring forward — and, having congratulated the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) on the arguments that he put forward, Mr. Wilson stated :
It is simply not on to introduce in 1987 a new scheme which gives the well-paid school teacher with crofting status a 25 per cent. rebate while the pensioner next door in a non-crofting house is hit for the full whack.
Obviously, if we are not careful in the circumstances of the amendment, the same situation could be created and the same objection could rightly be taken to it.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way. I am watching the time. Other hon. Members wish to raise matters, and I do not wish to prevent them if I can help it.
Therefore, if public bodies such as the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, whose position was raised in the debate on an earlier clause, wish to go down this route, many practical details of the arrangement will have to be established. It will not be sensible for the Bill to lay a duty on such bodies in advance of their consideration of the matter.
Under the national taxation system, the position of payments made by employers to employees, whatever the circumstances, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I doubt, given the present reasons for benefits for tied cottages, that they would naturally carry over to the community charge. It is

therefore highly unlikely that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to consider a tax concession of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. Of course, I shall draw to his attention the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends.
New clause 8 which was tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have the perverse effect of limiting the community charge liability of certain individuals to the amount that they paid in rates before the new system was introduced. That produces a series of glaring anomalies, For instance, some people who pay no rates now would be exempt from paying a community charge if they fell into the categories covered by the new clause, whereas others who are not in those categories would not be exempt. That would indeed extend the local tax base, which is one of the objectives of the Bill, but it would extend it in the most arbitrary and unfair way possible.
7 pm
Similarly, the clause makes no provision for people's circumstances changing after the Bill is enacted. What happens, for instance, in the case of a student whose liability is restricted, or who is exempted by this clause, but who subsequently graduates and obtains a well-paid job? Again, as the clause is framed, that would freeze the payments made by the groups it covers at the point when the Bill is enacted, making no provision for subsequent changes in local authority spending or other circumstances.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West did not intend to say that if a student happens to be exempt and is not paying rates today he should never be required to pay the community charge in perpetuity, even if he became the chairman of a major international or multinational company. However, that is the effect of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. That is why his original suggestion that it is a good clause may lead him, on reflection, to realise that that is not entirely so.
It can be argued that the hon. Gentleman's intention was to explore the position of certain particularly deserving groups under the community charge system. I should explain quite clearly, as we explained again and again in Committee and as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made clear in his valuable contribution, that the system we propose will make adequate provision for people on low incomes who would find it difficult to meet their full personal community charge liability. Those who at present qualify for social security benefits will be eligible for consideration for rebates under the scheme that we propose to bring in under clause 26. Contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman tried to give, that was fully explained in Committee. We admitted that the final figures could not be included because we do not know what the levels of expenditure will be when the scheme comes into operation in 1989.
Equally, there is the question of the minimum contribution. That will be in line with what is to be proposed under the housing benefits system, which will be made known shortly. It is right to try to keep the two schemes running along the same lines so that people will be able to understand them. We shall return to the rebate scheme tomorrow. However, the figures that we have produced are fairly detailed as to what, according to current assumptions, the actual rebate will be for various


categories of persons. Like the housing benefit scheme that will be brought into force in 1988, our proposed scheme will provide for all those who are liable for local taxation payments to make a minimum contribution towards their liability.
The position of students is slightly different. The Government intend that in the longer term they should be removed from entitlement to social security benefits and that they should return to the position whereby they depend on the students awards system, parental contributions and their own vacation earnings. The argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West seemed to be based on the assumption that at the moment students pay nothing towards local government services. There are large numbers of students in my constituency, many of whom are living in accommodation for which they have to make a contribution to the rating system, often without support.

Mr. Canavan: But only a minority contribute.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman says that only a minority contribute. If he were to look at the breakdown of student numbers, I think he would find that if students are living in rented accommodation they are paying an element of rates through the amount of rent that they pay to their landlords.

Mr. Canavan: That makes nonsense of the whole argument.

Mr. Ancram: No, it does not.
However, we accept that students will require help to enable them to meet the charge. Therefore, we propose that students who are eligible for grant—including those who, because of parental income, receive no grant payments at present—should receive a flat rate each year towards their personal community charge liability. It will be based on the average level of personal community charge in Scotland each year and it will have regard to the level of assistance that is available under the rebate system. The detailed arrangements will he worked out well before the introduction of the charge in two years' time.
I believe that the new clause of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is unnecessary. The protection for those whom he is seeking to protect is already there. It is included in the rebate system. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw his new clause. If he does not, I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist it.
I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian appreciates that his new clause would be likely to make things more difficult rather than easier for those whom he is trying to help, and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not, again I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. Does he have the leave of the House to speak again? Mr. Canavan.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain that under the existing system most people do not pay rates and say that that is undemocratic and then say that many students who do not pay rates directly pay them nevertheless, indirectly as a proportion of the rent that they are charged by their landlord. It makes nonsense of the Minister's argument.
The Minister has either misread or deliberately misinterpreted my new clause 8. If somebody ceases to be

a full-time student, he ceases to qualify for the rebate under the terms of my new clause. I am dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. He ought to accept the principle of the new clause and ask his father to move an appropriate amendment in the other place.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister's reply is far from satisfactory. This debate will be regarded as very bad news indeed by all occupiers of tied housing in Scotland, regardless of the service or industry for which they work. There appears to be some hope for the armed forces, but neither this Minister nor any other has given a specific undertaking. All we have had is the undertaking of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—with all the authority that he carries — that service men in Rosyth and Lossiemouth might be classified as people in overseas postings. That seems to be a curious new approach.
As for farm workers, the Minister has confirmed that this is a deliberate transfer from a property tax on farmers to a personal tax on farm workers. In many cases that will be seen as a nice windfall for employers and as very hard luck for a number of very low-paid people. The Minister tried to fudge the issue, but he knows as well as I do that farm workers in Scotland are among the lowest paid people in Scotland. He is seeking deliberately to impose an additional tax on them. All he is offering is a pie in the sky rebate scheme, but he will give no details.
In view of the hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory answer, I do not intend to withdraw the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

'A New Town Development Corporation shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 19 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963'.— [Mr. Cook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As the Minister will be aware, I have been in correspondence with him about this matter. In 1984 he and I exchanged letters on this point. The Minister will also be aware that this point was the subject of vigorous representations by Livingston development corporation in response to the 1983 White Paper and that therefore it has previously been on his desk.
It is a modest point. I do not pretend that it is a major point of political principle. However, it refers to what I regard as an anomaly in the law. Nobody intended the anomaly; therefore, no one is to blame. As no one is to blame, I hope that no one feels under any obligation to defend it. I certainly hope that the Minister will feel under no obligation to defend the anomaly. Neither he nor I qualified for the franchise when this anomaly was created. Therefore, I invite him to apply his native intelligence, legal training and natural acumen and an open and fresh mind to the problem that is before him, which I am sure he accepts requires attention.
The problem stems from the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 which in section 19 provided, no doubt sensibly, that any land which consists of a park vested in a local authority and from which the local authority does not derive profit
shall not be entered in the valuation roll


for subsequent years. The difficulty that that gives rise to in my constituency and, no doubt, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent the other Scottish new towns is that that section is confined to local authorities and does not apply to the development corporations of the new towns. Indeed, the Act was passed in 1963 and Livingston development corporation was not designated until 1964 and, therefore, could not have hoped to come within the scope of the Act as an entity in its own right.
Our problem is that in West Lothian we have a recreation and leisure department of the district council, which is extremely active and imaginative and which has a far-reaching and wide programme providing facilities for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but which suffers from a limited budget. Therefore, it is unable to provide as many facilities as it would wish, and as many facilities as the new town requires. The net result of that is that quite a large amount of land held as open parkland and recreation spaces in Livingston new town is vested not in the local authority but the development corporation.
When I took this matter up with the Minister in 1984 his reply was that it is open to the development corporation and the district council to negotiate a transfer of the ownership of the land. That point has been explored with both parties. However, there is a legal difficulty, which no doubt the Minister can understand but, I am afraid, I cannot get my mind round it. It relates to the rating of car parks attached to local authority parkland and it makes the district council reluctant to accept ownership of more parkland for fear that it is lumbered with a rating charge for the car parking space. However, whatever the legal obstacles to the transfer may be, I put it to the Minister that, having recommended transfer as a way of solving that anomaly, he has recognised that the land vested in the local authority for recreation purposes and the land vested in the development corporation for recreational purposes is identical in purpose and nature and should, logically, be treated in an identical fashion for valuation purposes. As it is, the land is treated differently. The occupants of parkland vested in a development corporation cannot qualify for exemption under section 19 and, therefore, find themselves liable to a rating charge.
The occupant of the particular parkland which first drew my attention to this problem is Livingston rugby club, an institution of which I am proud to say that I am honorary vice-president. That is a post I am happy to fulfil, not in any mistaken view that I may ingratiate myself with the leader of my party, but because it recognises the substantial community contribution made by the club, particularly its work among youngsters through its junior teams.
Livingston rugby club finds itself faced with a charge on the use and occupation of its pitches which it believes to be almost unique. The clubs with which it plays which use parkland vested in local authorities do not find themselves liable to such a rating charge. If the club's pitch was two miles to the east it, in turn, would not be liable to a rating charge. Indeed, most odd of all, in the 1990s, when Livingston development corporation is wound up and ceases to exist and its recreation and leisure function is transferred to West Lothian district council, the rating charge will then disappear. I do not know what ground in

logic could be found to justify the present charge for the rugby club occupying the land now. There is no ground in public policy to be served by it.
The revenue which would be forgone by the local authority and, therefore, ultimately by the Government by making the modest change to law would be negligible. That brings me to the obvious question put to me by the Minister in 1984, which is that since the money that will be saved by the rugby club will be modest, why make the change?
7.15 pm
I shall digress slightly but I hope stay within order. The rugby club, like other sports bodies, faces a heavy burden of rates charges. It runs into several thousands of pounds. It regards that burden as unreasonable since it is nonprofit making, it provides a leisure facility and supplies a focus for the local community. I shall not develop that point since it is the subject of a later debate on an amendment on the Notice Paper. However, the fact remains that it faces a heavy rates charge arising not from the pitches, but from the ancillary buildings and club premises. Why, then, take particular exception to the rating charge that arises from the use of the parkland?
The reason I raise this point and why the club takes particular exception to this charge is that it is the salt in the wound. Not only does the club find itself with a heavy rates burden, which it regards as unfair and anomalous compared with similar clubs south of the border, but, on top of that, it has to shoulder an extra amount, which may be small but which is certainly distinctive and discriminatory. In the club's view—and I am bound to say that I have strong sympathy with it—it is the last straw. It is an anomaly which it has to bear but which other clubs do not have to bear. Although I have illustrated my remarks by reference to its particular position, it is an anomaly which applies to all parkland held by Livingston development corporation and, no doubt, it is an anomaly which exists in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish new towns.
I put it to the Minister that this is not a partisan point. I would not claim Livingston rugby club as the strongest bastion of my political support. For all I know, there may be people in the club who support the Minister's party. I put the matter to him in a non-partisan way and I invite him to approach it in a non-partisan manner. I ask him not to be prejudiced against my new clause because it is moved from the Opposition Benches. I should say in advance that I am perfectly prepared to be advised by him that my new clause is technically incompetent. One of the reasons why I am anxious that, at some stage in my parliamentary career, I may occupy the Treasury Bench is that I hope that some day I shall be able to move an amendment which turns out not to be technically incompetent. I would be happy to withdraw my new clause if those are the grounds of objection offered by the Minister. However, I would be happy to do so only if in replying to the debate he recognises the principle, accepts that there is an anomaly and resolves to seek whatever way may be open to him to meet that principle and resolve it, perhaps in another place.

Mr. Ancram: I was touched by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at the beginning of his remarks. I have to be careful not to be tempted into paths which I might not otherwise have strayed into. I have listened carefully to the arguments he has put


forward. As he says, section 19 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 provides that any lands and heritages consisting of a park vested in or under the control of a local authority, and from which the local authority does not derive any net profit, should not be entered in the valuation roll. The effect of that is, of course, that such lands and heritages are not liable to be rated. The term "park" is defined for the purposes of the section as including any recreation ground or pleasure ground. As a general rule, however, buildings situated within a park will still enter the roll, and be rated, unless they are used for purposes which are ancillary to those of the park. That, as I understand it, is what the new clause is trying to extend to parks which are vested in or under the control of new town development corporations.
It seems to me that, as a matter of general principle—I am sure that the hon. Member for Livingston will agree with me on this—where there is any case for extending a rating exemption it has to be made out very carefully. I do, however, take the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman about the differences in treatment under the present law between local authority parks and those of new town development corporations. On the face of it, the matter certainly warrants being looked into further. I could not obviously agree to the new clause now on the basis of this short debate, but I am willing to take the matter away to consider it further, not alone but in consultation with COSLA and the new town development corporations, because they have an interest in how this is developed in the future. I cannot give any positive undertakings to the hon. Gentleman that I will meet his point, but I hope that he will accept that I make this suggestion to him in good faith and that on that basis he will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Robin Cook: On that basis, I would of course be willing to withdraw my new clause. I am grateful for the positive way in which the Minister responded and obviously I shall hope to be informed by his office of the progress of his consultations and I shall report back to my constituents. I shall ensure that the consultations are pressed for. I hope that the House can now proceed to debate the rest of the Bill in the same amiable and agreeable style.
I beg to ask leave to withraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments:
No. 3, in page 1, line 7, leave out '1992' and insert '1991'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 7, leave out '1992' and insert '1997.'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 7, at end add
'and shall be phased out from 1989.'.
Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7A,
Amendment No. 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out '1992' and insert '1991'.
Government amendments Nos. 9 to 12, 93, 97 to 106, 108 to 120, 107, 121 to 129 and 13,
Amendment No. 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out '1991–92'.
No. 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out '40 per cent.' and insert '30 per cent.'.
No. 16, in clause 3, page 2, leave out line 39.
Government amendments Nos. 19, 21, 27 and 33, Amendment No. 165, in clause 5, page 5, line 22. at end insert—
'(2) There shall be an annual revaluation of non-domestic subjects from and after 1993'.
No. 177, in clause 5, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
'(3) In any revaluation of lands and heritages consisting of a caravan site, there shall be disregarded any value attributed to any caravan stationed thereon and section 3 of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 shall thereupon cease to have effect.'.
Government amendments Nos. 34 to 40, 45 to 47, 88, 150, 152, 89 and 90.

Mr. Ancram: This large group of amendments seeks to give effect to the Government's decision that the community charge should be brought fully into operation with effect from 1 April 1989. The broad purpose of the amendments is therefore to remove from the Bill the provisions relating to the transitional period that was due to last from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1992.
It was originally envisaged that during the three-year period domestic rates would be steadily phased out while the community charge was being phased in. However, the advantages of a clean break introduction of the community charge have been put to us by a number of organisations which were concerned about the administrative difficulties local authorities would face in running the community charge and domestic rates side by side during the transitional period. Bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Scottish forum of the Rating and Valuation Association and COSLA came out clearly in favour of the clean break rather than a transitional period, while others, including a number of individual local authorities, expressed their concern over the cost and complexity of going ahead with the transitional arrangements. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, pressure was put on us by my hon. Friends in Committee and not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in a famous amendment that he moved on the basis that it was probing and then withdrew. In that amendment he presented arguments to which we may return later.

Mr. Dewar: What column was that?

Mr. Ancram: I can tell the hon. Member that the reference is column 284 of 15 January. He will find there that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) described the amendment as probing and the hon. Member for Cathcart withdrew it. The point was made during the course of that debate and we decided that there was a great deal of force in those views.
The advantages to local authorities will not simply be in terms of removing the burden of running two systems in parallel. Authorities will also be able to plan more effectively for the introduction of the new community charge as they will no longer have to consider the interim arrangements to cope with the transitional period. The: clean break will also make life simpler for individuals who will get a single community charge bill rather than two bills, calculated on quite different principles.
The amendments that are necessary to dispense with the transitional period are essentially technical. Many simply


consist of changes in dates. Clause 3, which made provision for domestic rates in the transitional period, is dropped, as is clause 5 which dealt with the effects of future revaluations on domesgtic subjects. Both are no longer necessary. Schedule I can be considerably shortened and simplified as it no longer has to make provision to identify the subjects on which domestic rates were to be charged during the transitional period.
Some hon. Members were concerned that the dropping of the transitional period would put an undue burden on individual payers of the community charge. As the debate progressed, it was felt that the transitional period was not going to make that much difference. Indeed, on 15 January in Committee the hon. Member for Cathcart said :
The administration of a big bang would be easier and the difference that it would make to the taxpayer would not be great." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 281.]
I felt that in a nutshell that was an endorsement of the principles that are to be adopted. Throughout the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Cathcart accused me of not listening to him and I am sure that he will now welcome the fact that I am giving positive proof that where he spoke sense — which I cannot say that he did frequently—I listened to him closely.
I commend the amendments to the House. They will be welcomed by those involved in administering the new system and they will be widely welcomed by people in Scotland who will now be able to get the full benefits of the community charge at an earlier date than would otherwise have been the case and who may have noticed that that will happen with the full support of the Opposition.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) enjoyed himself making that speech. I am always pleased to see someone who drudges getting a little pleasure out of life. That is good for all of us.
These amendments deal with the phasing that has disappeared. They deal with the transitional provisions which are no more — "Now you see them, now you don't". I must confess that I approach this concession with mixed feelings. We see the administrative advantages of a clean break. We became convinced slowly over a period during discussions with various people in local government that probably the balance of advantage was in favour of the clean break.
An amendment to that effect was tabled by my hon. Friends in Committee. It was certainly a probing amendment and there is nothing dishonourable in that. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made clear, it was a probing amendment that was paving the way for later discussion. There was no doubt that the arguments were fairly and effectively put by a number of my hon. Friends. This clutch of amendments is clearly something which the Opposition welcome. The amendments reflect an area about which we expressed considerable alarm and disquiet.
There was a great deal dismissive and unpleasant criticisms of the Committee stage of the Bill, especially during the debate on the timetable motion. That criticism was made the more irritating when we consider its source —but there you are, we all put up with that kind of thing.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) produced a rather startling test of the effectiveness of a Committee stage. It was apparently the number of concessions and amendments that the Government had to table. She rather triumphantly proved that because the Minister had been obdurate to all argument and had given not an inch—well, perhaps two inches, as there were two very small concessions — in some way the Committee stage had been a disaster and the Opposition had been totally ineffective. I am delighted that the hon. Lady will now be happy to know that it was a very much more productive Committee stage than she had anticipated. Presumably the Opposition can wear this thicket of amendments as a badge of pride. The hon. Lady's theory is somewhat unlikely. Perhaps I can preserve it for posterity by calling it "McCurley's law".
I am reminded—perhaps irrevelantly, but only briefly —of a brilliant piece of Opposition work, by the hon. Lady's standards, during the passage in another place of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. The Minister may also remember the passage of that Act during which a noble peer—I do not even know who the hero was—objected very strongly to the use of the word "titled". You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill dealt with conveyancing matters and referred to "titled" and "non-titled" spouses. That was objected to on the grounds that a "titled" spouse was clearly the wife of a Member of another place. It was extremely unpleasant that that should then be imported into a Bill that dealt with such matters as battered wives and broken marriages. As a result of that brilliant stroke, several hundred amendments appeared on the Order Paper changing "titled" and "non-titled" to "entitled" and "non-entitled". I suppose that if we apply "McCurley's law", that was one of the great parliamentary triumphs of the decade. I am not sure that it will hold as the proper test, but I record it in passing.
We have these concessions and amendments which we pressed for and I must not be ungracious about them. However, it is fair to remind the Minister that in Committee the amendments were strongly resisted by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who looks after Scottish industry in his spare time. He was in fine form. He described the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) as being as "pellucid as opaque glass". I suppose that is how they talk down in Galloway. I must go down some time to find out.

Mr. Ancram: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get the wrong dialect. My hon. Friend was giving an example of Caithness dialect as used by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on every other occasion in Committee.

Mr. Dewar: I am always careful about Conservative Ministers who talk about glass and mental capacity. I remember the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) referring to his mind as being like a pond in winter frozen over. I suppose that it is a matter of taste.
I thought that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithdale made a brave speech on that occasion. Indeed, he got completely out of line with his master's voice, because he started by saying that all the talk about difficulties for COSLA and the local authorities were exaggerated. He said :


There are a number of able and experienced professionals staffing Scottish local authorities, and they should be able to make the necessary arrangements to cope with the transitional period.
That was a startling statement, because it was praise for local government and local government officials. It shows that there is still some realism lurking at least in the junior parts of the Scottish Office.
The Minister went on to say:
I repudiate the prediction of the president of COSLA—
that is fighting talk—
that there will be five years of chaos if the Bill is enacted and implemented as we propose. To me that is nothing more than a strong criticism of officials in finance departments up and down Scotland."—[official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 283.]
He was taking up the cudgels on their behalf. He then asked that the amendment be withdrawn or he and his hon. Friends would bury it with the block vote.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State still believes that there would not have been five years of chaos. But the fact that he has tabled these amendments shows that he accepts the argument that there would have been a period of considerable difficulty and that we are better off without the transitional arrangements, which is what the Opposition argued in Committee.
It is important to clarify our position for the record. We believed that great difficulty would be caused by running the rates and the poll tax in tandem. We thought that it would cause much public confusion and much complication for officials already under pressure. Indeed, it was not just a matter of them running in tandem; the proportions of the tax take contributed by each form of revenue-raising would vary during the period. For example, if one considers the one-day period, as I did in a moment of enthusiasm, one sees the problems of running the rebate and housing benefits systems, with authorities that have different responsibilities following two forms of taxation. It became clear that great difficulty would be caused, so we came to the conclusion that there was a strong administrative case for moving in the way that the Government have chosen. That was the basis for our amendments.
The trouble is that it is purely an administrative argument and does not touch our basic objections to the Bill as drafted and the scheme as envisaged. Those objections remain.
The Under-Secretary of State was a little less than frank when he managed to give the impression—it may have been unintentional, but he may he under a misapprehension—that most of those who had lodged technical objections as to the practicality of the poll tax were safe abed, relieved that their fears had been swept away with the disappearance of the phasing arrangements, and he quoted the Scottish branch of the Rating and Valuation Association in that context. I have here a comprehensive series of comments on the scheme from the Rating and Valuation Association—dated 13 February 1987, so it does not have cobwebs on it yet.
The letter contains much adverse comment on the phasing arrangements in clause 3, so no doubt the association will warmly welcome the fact that they have disappeared. It would not be fair to the House to quote at length from this sophisticated and lengthy document, but hon. Members will take my word for the fact that it still contains plenty of reservations, caveats and criticism of matters that will continue to be essential parts of the

scheme, if it is implemented. The association describes the retail prices index test in clause 4 as inappropriate, and it calls the collective community charge machinery "unnecessarily cumbersome" and says that it should he scrapped. It says that parts of clause 20 are
unworkable in their present form.
In summing up, the letter states:
The Government should be in no doubt that the relative yield from the community charge will be considerably less than that from domestic rates. The community charge will be easily avoided and considerably more expensive to collect than domestic rates.
The association makes a sustained case for that conclusion.
I hope that the Minister accepts that he put a gloss on the matter when he seemed to suggest that the opposition to the Bill has been defused and that there were no doubts among the professionals. The Rating and Valuation Association represents professionals. It is not a gaggle of Labour councillors plotting the downfall of the free market economy and the prosperous future of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). It represents people who have examined, in a narrow professional sense, the nuts and bolts of the system and found it wanting.
I make those points because it is important that our position and the position of those who have criticised the Bill should not be misinterpreted later. The amendments will provide some improvement. They will simplify the introduction of a bad scheme, but unfortunately we have failed to improve it in any way with other amendments. In a sense, the change sharpens the divide between the parties. It removes the blurring and the period of confusion. It means that suddenly in 1989 a fully armoured, 100 per cent. poll tax will be sprung upon us. Although I give the amendments a qualified welcome, I do not wish to leave anyone under the impression that our opposition to the Bill has been decreased by this concession. I would much rather—there is a strong case for this—that the Minister had decided to introduce the clean break at the end of the planned phase-in period in 1992 instead of in 1989, when there will be many administrative difficulties. The authorities will have to organise collection and compile registers before April 1989.
I am glad that, despite the snorts and the cries of repudiation in Committee, Ministers listened to our argument. I can only express the pious, and 1 fear unfounded, hope that even at this late stage it will be a catching habit and that there will be signs of movement in other areas.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The purpose of amendment No. 3 and the related amendments standing in my name was to shorten to 1991 the phasing-in period of the community charge, with appropriate changes in the percentages. In a sense, they were fall-back amendments. He will know that because he has expressed concern, as has the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), about the practicability of the phasing-in period. I tabled the amendments as a fall-back in case my hon. Friend found himself unable to accept the case for the direct introduction of the community charge in 1989. Obviously I am not pressing the amendments, and I warmly welcome his decision.
My hon. Friend's decision is welcome on two quite different grounds, first, on the grounds of practicability. That was the theme in the speech of the hon. Member for


Garscadden who rightly referred to the Rating and Valuation Association, and the welcome and well-considered points that hon. Members from all parties have received from that body. I do not want to rehearse those arguments. However, I should like to add that the second major ground for the direct introduction of the community charge in one year is the acceptability and credibility of the entire system. There is no doubt that many people were concerned about the acceptability of bringing in a community charge over such a long period which, in political terms, could cover not only the beginning of the next Parliament but, arguably, into the Parliament after that.
During the period 1989–1992 there would not only have been considerable complications but a lack of the advantages of the community charge, in terms of acceptability and the benefits for the democratic control of local authority expenditure. Considerable confusion would have resulted. Therefore, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their decision, which is sensible, not only in practical terms, but in terms of principle.

Mr. Maclennan: The alliance is in favour of the Government's proposals, in the sense that we have been persuaded that the practicalities of administering a poll tax make it sensible to have a clean break. That was not always our view, but we have been persuaded by the arguments that have been addressed by those who are most likely to be closely involved with its implementation.
However, it was also our view that the date on which the translation to the new system would take place seems too soon. The need for careful preparation and proper debate of many of the matters which have not yet been decided and which are covered by the subordinate legislation that will depend on this Bill mean that the date should be later than that which the Government have in mind.
The Minister will recall that in Committee I proposed a different operative date. I suggested 1994. That was designed not only to give the proper time but to ensure that there was a settled opinion that the change should be made. It is not sensible to introduce a tax system that does not enjoy the support of the taxed public. To follow the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), that would require the interposition of more than one general election.
There is great advantage in having a settled view as to what local taxation is appropriate before we break up the system with which we have lived for about 200 years. Cleanliness for that break is to be preferred to trying to run in tandem two systems that are both complex. I am glad that the Minister arrived at the conclusion that he did.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome my right hon. and hon. Friend's amendments. Amendment No. 1 brings forward the date. As every hon. Member who has spoken has said, the practical advantages in doing that are to be commended, partly because operating the two systems in tandem would have imposed a heavy work load on the local authorities. The amendment should be welcomed, if only for that reason.
However, I welcome it for another reason. The earlier that we bring such matters into operation and make them

effective, the more we shall see the benefits in the way in which the population at large responds to them. I sincerely believe that the system will be welcomed once it is seen to be operating because, contrary to the views expressed from the Opposition Benches, the Scottish public like to know what is happening. The rating system has never been properly understood and has been a hostile form of taxation with no friends, other than those who seem to be running it, and councillors who see benefits to themselves in being elected under a system in which there is little real accountability.
Amendment No. 33 deletes clause 5. My amendment, amendment No. 177, is an amendment to the clause. On the assumption that clause 5 will be deleted from the Bill I should like to say a few words about why I have tabled amendment No. 177. History and experience show that Scottish assessors often view things substantially differently in different regions.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have recollections of reed beds and caravans, matters in which I had a constituency interest, because the caravan and leisure industry is an important part of the tourism that is so vital to the well-being of constituencies such as mine. Therefore, I tabled my amendment to spell out quite clearly to the assessors what the legislation would mean. Unless one spells that out clearly one runs into problems. Amendment No. 177 deals with "the revaluation of lands and heritages" consisting of caravan sites. That is important because caravanners and caravan sites have had the ghastly problem of not enjoying the discounted rebate that everyone had thought had gone through in an earlier Act. However, we discovered that the Scottish assessors did not see it quite that way, and in the end primary legislation was required to rectify something that everyone, including the Minister who put the Bill through, believed already applied to caravan sites. It was believed that they would enjoy the same benefits as in England. However, that turned out not to be the case and the discount never materialised in Scotland.
The amendment gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the assessors in some detail. District valuers in England and Wales operate quite differently from the assessors in Scotland. I am always fascinated by the way in which the assessors arrive at their valuations, and how they arrive at quite different conclusions in adjacent regions. From the point of view of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1978, the district valuers in England applied the Act as it was intended.
However, that did not apply to Scotland, and that situation had to be remedied by the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will remember that I was involved in several private Members' Bills, early-day motions and all the other devices that we use in this place to draw attention to a matter that we feel is wrong. I was delighted that my hon. Friends understood that and brought forward measures to put things right. However, it was about eight years before the correction was made. I did not believe that we would want to face that position again before the Bill was enacted. I had horrible feelings about what could happen if we did not spell out clearly to the assessors what the legislation meant.
I did not serve on the Committee because I was ill when the Members who served on it were selected. It is the first major Scottish Committee on which I have not served since coming to the House, so it has been a bit of a holiday


for me. However, I understand that in Committee Ministers said that they understood clearly the worries and problems of the caravan and caravan site industry, and I thank them rather belatedly. I am pleased that this evening they have tabled amendment No. 2 with related amendments and amendment No. 33 because it will not be necessary for me to take any action on my amendment No. 177.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: First, I shall deal with the Government amendments. Given the horrendous implications of phasing in a new system and maintaining the old, the Government are right to introduce these amendments. However, if one does not agree with the nature of the poll tax, one regrets that it will be imposed so much faster. All hon. Members will probably agree that in practical terms the Government have taken the only possible course, but I am less sure whether they have chosen the correct year in which to introduce the system. Considerable difficulties will be met by those who must prepare the various registers, and they will be hard pushed to bring the new system into effect on the date that the Government have chosen.
Without slighting the amendment selection, I am not sure why amendment No. 165 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has strayed into this sequence of amendments. Perhaps it qualified because it included a date and the Government amendments were largely altering dates. But since many of my excellent new clauses were cut down by the scythe of selection, far be it from me to complain.
The amendment provides for a change in the arrangement for the valuation of commercial property. It may well be that I have not taken on board fully the Government's intentions in this regard, but, like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I did not serve on the Committee. A reason why there was such a huge outcry at the time of the revaluations almost two years ago was that many who had shops or hotels or who operated businesses were hit by a heavy increase in their valuations at the end of the septennial revaluation. Because of the delay factor in revaluation they were clobbered by unexpected demands in cash terms on their businesses.
It has always been a matter of public notice that those who own premises or operate businesses have frequent disagreements with local authorities about the scale of their rates payments. That is a matter for on-going discussion. They have found difficulty in budgeting where, apart from any inflationary increase in rates which may have taken place under the commercial rate, they have been met on revaluation by a quantum leap, sometimes of 300 per cent., which in cash terms has meant a substantial increase in the sums that must be paid.
My amendment suggests that from and after a given date annual revaluations shall be introduced. That would probably not have been feasible when assessors had to deal with domestic properties, but that problem has now been removed by the Bill, so assessors will have time to pay a little more attention to commercial rating. Indeed, it could be said that the number of properties affected is much less and there is no reason why an annual revaluation should not be feasible.
Furthermore, the Government intend to introduce a national business rate, but that may not come into effect before the turn of the century. The Minister is shaking his head, but he knows full well that in the sister kingdom of

England there has been no revaluation for a considerable time. It would be a painful exercise if his English colleagues had to introduce a valuation which inclined both systems to work more closely together. He would take some pleasure from that because English Ministers would have to wriggle, scream and screech in the same way as he and his colleagues in the Scottish Office had to during revaluation.
Be that as it may, I am suggesting an annual revaluation which would take into account current trends. If it appeared that the rates of any given commercial property were increasing beyond what the business could bear, early notice would be given to the owners so that they could look for alternative premises in good time.
My amendment has a great deal to commend it and I urge the Minister to give it due consideration and to disembed it from all the other amendments taken with it.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The people of Scotland should be dancing in the streets tonight. These amendments make a tremendous difference to the impact of the Bill. The fact that the burden of domestic rates will disappear in 1989 rather than 1992 will be widely welcomed.
I praise my hon. Friend the Minister for his genius in introducing the amendments and getting all Opposition spokesmen jumping on the bandwagon and saying how much they support the amendments, although they have been wholly opposed to the community charge. He may have looked for a phasing-in period to introduce the community charge and to abolish domestic rates because he may have been taken in by the statements of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his various colleagues in the Labour party and, indeed, by hon. Members in other parties that they would fight the Bill to the last ditch, that they would fight it and fight it again and that it was the worst thing that had ever happened to Scotland. On the Opposition Benches I see three Labour Members, one Liberal Member, one SDI' Member and one SNP Member. If that is fighting to the last ditch—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to count incorrectly? He has already made one mistake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems to be a point more of arithmetic than of order.

Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is referring to his normal schizophrenia or whether I have missed one of his colleagues.

Mr. Foulkes: One cannot have normal schizophrenia.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman and his party pledged to fight the Bill. We are advancing the introduction of the abolition of domestic rates which is a historic decision, and if this is the opposition that we were promised, it is feeble.
I cannot but believe that my hon. Friend the Minister thought that there would be stronger resistance both from the Opposition and in Scotland to his proposals than there has been. The way in which he has doggedly pursued the argument and explained how the tax will operate to the benefit of the majority of the people in Scotland has brought us to the position where the abolition of domestic rates ahead of time is not a matter of controversy.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) tabled amendment No. 165. This must be the biggest piece of cheek from any party this Parliament. On television, in the newspapers and in this Chamber the hon. Gentleman complained about the last revaluation and said that Scotland was uniquely disadvantaged. He argued that that was an outrage and an example of how the Government did not care about Scotland which had to endure this revaluation while England did not. Now he is suggesting, not that Scotland should have regular revaluations, but that it should have more revaluations, that they should be annual, thus creating a markedly different situation from that which exists in England. However, just a few months ago, for his own political advantage, he was arguing that there was an injustice in Scotland. How can the hon. Gentleman square that? I will gladly give way to him if he cares to explain how he reconciles his previous position with the position that he takes now.

8 pm

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that I have never attacked the fundamentals of revaluation. In times past the Minister has pointed that out. I said that a septennial revaluation suddenly heaping huge increases upon people is bad for business and bad for Scotland. Secondly, there are differences in valuation law relating to the valuations of properties in England and Scotland, and they operate to our disadvantage. That is one reason why I put down some new clauses on this topic. Unfortunately, they were not selected.

Mr. Forsyth: At the time of the last revaluation I do not recall the hon. Gentleman going around Scotland saying that England was uniquely disadvantaged because it had not had a revaluation for 12 years. He did not go around saying that businesses in England were facing a tremendous threat. On the contrary, he said that the Tory Government had introduced a revaluation and after seven years there was none in England and Scotland was uniquely disadvantaged. He is now arguing for annual revaluations in Scotland and saying that every Scottish business man should be faced with considering an annual appeal against his assessment, with all the expense and burden that that would impose. That is typical of the opportunism that we see in Scotland from the hon. Gentleman's party. Once again it shows that only the Tories are prepared to take seriously the rating system and its running, rather than just going in for the political mudslinging and opportunism that this amendment represents.

Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say where great satisfaction is to be found in the way in which the Government are currently treating commercial ratepayers? The evidence that I have had is that business men are not at all happy with the Government's proposals.

Mr. Forsyth: The business men who advised the hon. Gentleman that they would be better off with annual revaluations must not understand the rating system or its impact on them. Does he think that the business men in Callander in my constituency or in his constituency would welcome the prospect of filling in forms or going to appeal every year if they think that they have been treated unjustly? If he thinks that, he does not have much understanding of business men.
Business men to whom I have spoken welcome the decision to maintain commercial rates and to put a ceiling on the increase. That is because they will know where they are and will not get the sort of huge increases which, in arguing for annual revaluations, the hon. Gentleman said were a burden on business. If he recognises that unpredicted and sudden increases are a burden, why does he not welcome these proposals about commercial rating? Once again the hon. Gentleman is trying to exploit people's understandable fears and worries about change but he is not doing anything constructive. His party mouths that it is in favour of a local income tax but, like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), it has yet to come up with a workable scheme or to participate in a meaningful way in discussions about one of the most important issues in Scottish politics.
I welcome the Government amendments. I am overcome with admiration for the Scottish Office for being able to abolish so quickly a hated tax and for being able to draw so much support from Opposition Members who previously committed themselves to open hostility towards my hon. Friend's opening position.

Mr. Ancram: I find myself in the rather unusual position of responding to a debate on a series of Government amendments which have been welcomed by all parties in the House. I wondered whether to describe that in card-playing terms as a full house, but perhaps that would be rather overdoing it. A royal flush was the other thought that came into my mind, but I am not sure whether that is appropriate either. I am grateful to hon. Members for welcoming the Government's decision to do away with the transition period.
I shall deal first with the amendment dealt wih by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He is a persistent and hard-working defender of people with caravan interests. He said that this was discussed in Committee and he will see in the record of the Committee for 15 January at column 322 that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) quoted at some length from a letter that I wrote to the chairman of the Scottish caravan industry joint liaison committee. That letter was written on 27 November last year and set out the position. I shall summarise that position for the House.
The Bill gives a choice on how caravans, which are not allowed to be occupied for human habitation throughout the year and are occupied by individuals and not the caravan site operator, are to be treated. Either they come out of rating, which seems to be the purpose of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, although I appreciate that, effectively, it is a probing amendment, and the individual occupiers would become liable to the standard community charge, or they remain in valuation and are subject to the modified arrangements for levy of non-domestic rates proposed in the Bill.
The caravan industry was concerned, as were the Government, that a change in the standard community charge would increase the burden on caravanners. Therefore, it is proposed that an individually occupied static leisure caravan should continue to be valued under the present arrangements where it is assessed along with the site as a single unit and entitled to 40 per cent. derating or, where it is not situated on a caravan site subject to single unit valuation or where the occupier so elects, is


individually valued and rated. This is the course preferred by representatives of the caravan industry with whom the Government have consulted.
The provisions in the Bill are considered to be better for caravanners than if they became subject to the standard community charge. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that most people in the caravan industry have accepted that this is so. I hope that on that basis he will be prepared not to press his useful amendment, which has given us a chance to place on record the thought that has gone into this part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 165 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was a little unkind in his speech, because the hon. Member for Dundee, East always protected himself by saying that he was a great believer in revaluations. The strangest comment that he made, and which he reiterated in this debate, is that his main argument is about the anomalies between Scotland and England because of the different rating systems.
I find it hard to understand how a Scottish nationalist, whose whole political purpose, as I understand it, is to ensure that Scotland is separate and that its interests are dealt with in a Scottish way and by the Scottish legal system, should say when the system that he is seeking is in place—as it is in terms of the Scottish valuation system—that, because it works in a different way from the system in England and the English seem to be paying less, he is unhappy about it. Suddenly, Scottish nationalism goes out of the window and the cry is for harmonisation. That is one of the more strange positions that the hon. Member adopted during the period of revaluation. Indeed, he still adopts that position.
I think we all accept that regular revaluations are necessary to keep the tax base up to date. As the Green Paper envisaged, it is planned to have simultaneous revaluations of non-domestic property north and south of the border in 1990. Statements have been made to that effect. In a sense, this is part of the process of harmonisation of valuation and rating between the two countries. A simultaneous revaluation is an essential part of any process of harmonisation.

Mr. Wilson: 1 am aware that there was a reference in the Green Paper to simultaneous revaluation. Does the Minister think that that will be carried into effect because the history of valuation and revaluation in England shows that when Ministers are confronted with the problem they retreat? Does he not agree that it is more likely that revaluation in England will not take place? How will the provisions in the Bill help those who occupy commercial subjects in relation to those premises that pay less in England than in Scotland? What changes in valuation law does the Minister propose? The Minister is aware that the basis of valuation in Scotland, which may be based on the same terminology as in England, is different in practice.

Mr. Ancram: First, it is planned to have simultaneous revaluation of non-domestic properties north and south of the border in 1990. That must be part of any process of harmonisation and it is regarded as such. The Inland Revenue and the Scottish assessors have met to discuss how harmonisation with regard to revaluation may be achieved in practice. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are differences between the two systems. I believe that there are differences in practice and differences in law.
Therefore, we must seek to eliminate the differences in practice before a revaluation—if possible before the 1990 revaluation. Until we have simultaneous revaluation based on a similar practice we shall not be able to judge where the differences of law exist and set about correcting them.
The process of harmonisation, by its nature, is not one that can be carried out swiftly. However, the Government have launched that process and I believe that it will be of advantage to ratepayers in Scotland. An argument in principle can be made for having a revaluation each year. That is covered in the Green Paper with reference to the reduction in turbulence that is normally associated with revaluations over a long time and keeping a tax base up to date. Those matters were canvassed. However, to move from the system of quinquennial revaluations to annual revaluations over a few years—as implied in the amendment—represents a considerable undertaking.
To bring about such a fundamental change in a relatively short time it would be necessary to pay particular regard to the work of the local assessors. Developments that are taking place—such as advanced computer technology—may make that a possibility in the future. I would not wish to preclude or confirm that development at this stage. We wish to listen to further representations about that. If we retain the rating system as the base of non-domestic taxation, it is obviously in all our interests to ensure that we have the fairest and most acceptable system in its place.
The purpose of these amendments is to get rid of the transitional period. They have been widely welcomed. It is interesting that at the end of the debate in Committee the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who I am glad to see in the Chamber, said:
If the Government believe that the poll tax will be such a tremendous improvement and so much fairer and attractive to the people of Scotland, why on earth did they not have the courage of their convictions and introduce it immediately''—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 284.]
That was the hon. Gentleman's argument for supporting the amendment moved by his hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and those outside the House understand that we are committed to the abolition of domestic rates. We are confident that the system we propose in this Bill will work. It is in that spirit that I move these amendments and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for supporting them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

VALUATION ROLL NOT TO INCLUDE DOMESTIC SUBJECTS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page I, line 9, leave out '1992–93' and insert '1989–90'.

No. 7A, in page I, line 11, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 176 in, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
'(b)(i) any mobile home and the caravan site on which it is stationed including any buildings, ground pertinents, heritable facilities and services which may be used in connection therewith, but excluding any caravan not being a mobile home.


(ii) for the purposes of this subsection "mobile home" and "caravan site" shall have the meaning assigned to them respectively by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.'.

In some respects this amendment is a follow-up to the previous group of amendments. It was designed as a probing amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that, when residential caravans are deleted from the valuation roll with the abolition of domestic rates, the assessor shall, in valuing a caravan park, exclude from his calculations the pitch on which a residential caravan is stationed and those parts of the caravan park used by the occupants of residential caravans.
If the amendment is accepted the assessor, when arriving at his valuation of the caravan park, will not be entitled to include any buildings, roads, lighting, services and so on, which, if used in connection with the occupation of an ordinary dwelling house, would not be separately rated as they would be covered within the community charge. It is necessary for all the matters to which assessors in Scotland shall have regard to be spelt out in the legislation. As I said earlier, the assessors in Scotland, unlike the district valuers in England and Wales, are independent of Government directions. Accordingly, they do not have regard to any directions regarding the relaxation of valuation principles. That is why I have brought forward this amendment.
Problems arose as a result of assessors in Scotland refusing to follow the declared intention of the Government regarding the valuation of caravan sites under the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976. That Act was followed by the district valuers in England and Wales but was not followed in Scotland. The matter had to be put right by the enactment of section 15 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. That Act inserted section 3A into the Rating (Caravans Site) Act, but that took place eight years after the introduction of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act.
My amendment should make the task of the assessor, if required, much easier without any loss of revenue. I stress "if required" because I would like the Minister to clarify the exact position so that when assessors and others in Scotland are required to consider the legislation properly there is no doubt in anyone's mind about what was intended by the legislation and the current state of affairs.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for raising this issue. I am aware that he is interested in the question of caravans and mobile homes. It raises another intriguing aspect of the legislation. Arising out of the amendment, we must ask when a caravan becomes a mobile home. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman expect an assessor to apportion those parts of facilities attached to a caravan site that are used by touring caravans at the same time as being used by people resident in mobile homes? It highlights an area of anomalies that will be created by the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman has discussed mobile homes and caravans and I can visualise some fascinating situations in his part of Scotland. During the berry-picking period and the tatty-lifting time there are a substantial number of people temporarily resident in caravans who will be

moving around farms in his area, in Angus and the neighbouring areas of Grampian. These people will supposedly be subject to the poll tax and I would be fascinated to hear how they will be taken into the system.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the hon. Gentleman is so knowledgeable about the situation that exists during berry-picking time in my constituency, he will also recognise that there are few made-up roads or other facilities where the caravans are located during berry-picking. Much of what is contained in my amendment has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Home Robertson: I accept that. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point because it is an intriguing example of the absurd task that the Government are laying upon registration officers and the people whose duty it will be to collect the poll tax. For part of the year such people will have the duty of finding the travelling people in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world. He will have to put them on to the register and then collect poll tax from them. These are the people on whom the Government want to load this new tax to relieve other people who may be paying higher rates. It will not be possible to collect tax from such people. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Ancram: There is nowhere in the Bill a mention of the imposition of poll tax, so the question put by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not arise.
The treatment of caravans under the Bill has been looked at carefully in consultation with a number of interested parties, including local assessors. The policy that has been developed has been explained to caravan interests and was made clear in the last set of amendments discussed in Committee and in a letter that I wrote to the chairman of the Scottish caravan industry joint liaison committee.
The main difficulty that I have with my hon. Friend's amendment is that it seeks to define "mobile homes" in terms of the definition in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which, in turn, refers to the definition of "caravan" in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. This immediately casts doubt on the words in the amendment
but excluding any caravan not being a mobile home
which give the amendment a certain circularity.
Leaving that aside, in the light of what I have already said both tonight and in Committee, the amendment seems to be going far too wide, in that it seems to bring all kinds of caravans, along with caravan sites and any related site development, within the scope of domestic subjects. This means, for example, that large commercial caravan sites would be excluded from rates. This goes much further than is appropriate and than has been envisaged in consultations.
The policy that we have worked out is fair and reasonable and has been accepted by the caravan industry, which has welcomed the steps that we have taken to ensure that the Bill will not harm its interests. I hope that, on the face of that, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: By leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend for that clear explanation of the Government's position and what is intended within the


legislation. I am delighted to pass this information back to the caravan people and if they feel that this is not clear, although I think that it is, they can take an opportunity in the other place to try to do something about it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made, No. 9, in page 2, line 7 after 'above', insert—'(a)'
No. 10, in page 2, line 9 after second 'and', insert—
'(b) the part of those lands and heritages which does not constitute domestic subjects'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 10 at end insert—
'(5A) Any proprietor, tenant or occupier of any lands and heritages may appeal to the valuation appeal committee for the area in which the lands and heritages are situated against any decision of the assessor

(a) to alter the valuation roll with effect from 1st April 1989 by deleting those lands and heritages on the ground that they constitute domestic subjects; or
(b) not so to alter the roll.'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 11 leave out 'to IV' and insert 'and 11'.— [Mr. Ancram.]

Schedule

VALUATION AND RATING

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 24 leave out Part I. — [Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 25, line 21 after '10', insert
'Subject to paragraph 15 below.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments No. 95 and No. 96.

Mr. Ancram: Schedule 1(15) is intended to avoid the need for the assessor to make alterations to the valuation roll reflecting each and every change in the use made of part residential subjects, however small that change might be. If it is to achieve that objective, the paragraph should apply to the making of alterations as well as to their coming into effect. As it stands, paragraph 15 does not in any way bring about restrictions in the number of alterations that have to be made under paragraphs 10 and 11 of the schedule. It only makes the date when the alterations come into effect, which is otherwise governed by paragraph 14.
Amendment No. 96 ensures that the paragraph can meet its purpose. It also introduces a useful element of flexibility by enabling a period other than three months to be prescribed. This will allow adjustments to be made in the light of experience.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are consequential upon No. 96 and I think that hon. Members will feel that this is an improvement to the way in which the legislation will operate.

Mr. Home Robertson: Just this once, I am prepared to take the Minister's word for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 25, line 32, after '11', insert
'Subject to paragraph 15 below,'.
No. 96, in page 26, line 15, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 16 and insert
'be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed, after the date when that apportionment note is made or takes effect, whichever is later.'.
No. 97, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—

'17A. No rates shall be leviable in respect of such part of their rateable value as relates to the residential use of any lands and heritages which are part residential subjects.".
No. 98, in page 26, line 35, leave out
'a domestic subjects note or'.
No. 99, in page 26, line 38, leave out
'domestic subjects notes and'.
No. 100, in page 26, leave out lines 44 and 45.
No. 101, in page 27, line 1, leave out '(b)'.
No. 102, in page 27, line 4, leave out Part IV.
No. 103, in page 27, line 39, leave out
'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
No. 104, in page 27, line 40, leave out
'sections 3 (domestic rates) and'
and insert
'section'.
No. 105, in page 28 line 1, leave out
'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
No. 106, in page 28, line 2, leave out
'3 (domestic rates) and'.
No. 108, in page 28, line 29, leave out
'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
No. 109, in page 28, line 30, leave out
'sections 3 (domestic rates) and'
and insert
'section'.
No. 110, in page 28, leave out from beginning of line 36 to 'the non-domestic' in line and insert
'"rate" means the non-domestic rate within the meaning of section 4 (non-domestic rates) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987,'.
No. 111, in page 28, line 47, leave out
'the domestic or, as the case may be'.
No. 112, in page 28, line 48, leave out
'3 (domestic rates) and'.
No. 113, in page 29, line 9, leave out 'domestic rates and'.
No. 114, in page 29, line 11, leave out 'domestic and'.
No. 115, in page 29, line 12, leave out 'domestic and'
No. 116, in page 29, line 14, at end insert
',for the words "district rate" substitute "non-domestic district rate".'.
No. 117, in page 29, leave out lines 15 to 18.
No. 118, in page 29, line 20, leave out
'domestic rate" or'.
No. 119, in page 29, line 21, leave out 'respectively'
No. 120, in page 29, line 22, leave out 'sections 3 (domestic rates) and' and insert 'section'.
No. 107, in page 29, line 26, at end insert 'for the words "district rate" wherever they appear, substitute "non-domestic rate" '.
No. 121, in page 29, leave out lines 27 to 36.
No. 122, in page 29, line 43, leave out 'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
No. 123, in page 30, line 6, leave out 'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
No. 124, in page 30, line 7, leave out 'sections 3 (domestic rates) and insert 'section'.
No. 125, in page 30, line 14, leave out 'the domestic rate,'.
No. 126, in page 30, line 19, leave out 'the domestic rate,'.
No. 127, in page 30, leave out from beginning of line 31 to 'and' in line 32.
No. 128, in page 31, line 5, leave out 'domestic and'.
No. 129, in page 31, line 5, leave out 'sections 3 (domestic rates) and' and insert 'section'.— [Mr.Ancram.]

Clause 3

DOMESTIC RATES 1989–1992

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 13, leave out. clause 3.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 4

NON-DOMESTIC RATES

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'in whose entry in the valuation roll there appears no domestic subjects note' and insert 'in respect of which there is an entry in the valuation roll'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 4, leave out line 4 and insert—'(B-S) × I'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and No. 28.

Mr. Lang: Amendments numbers 20, 22, 23 and 24 are drafting amendments intended to remove a possible ambiguity in the definition of "I" in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 4. At present I is defined in terms of a percentage increase in the RPI over a 12-month period. This might be taken to require that the other factors in the formulae be multiplied by a number on a percentage scale from 1 to 100. Clearly this is not what is intended.
The amended definition of I dispenses with percentages, and expresses I in terms of a ratio of the RPI at the two relevant points in time.
To define I in this way requires adjustment of the formulae themselves. The process of adjustment enables the formulae to be expressed more simply.
I hope that I have made the position clear.

Mr. Home Robertson: I confess that algebra was never
my strong point, so I am not sure whether I am grateful to the Minister for removing a (B—S) or an (M) from the two formulae in subsections (3) and (4). As I understand it, these amendments will mean that the Secretary of State — with the consent of the Treasury, which is not a proviso that fills us with confidence—will determine the maximum non-domestic rate poundage for each local authority, which will generally be based on the increase in the retail prices index over the previous year.
It is important to reiterate at this stage our opposition to the principle of Whitehall dictating the details of local affairs in Scotland, and that affects the determination of non-domestic rates as well as everything else. This part of the Bill is a serious infringement of the principle of local democracy. It undermines the accountability of local authorities to local business. Ministers keep telling us that one of the main objectives underlying the Bill is increasing the accountability of local authorities.
It is probably worth mentioning that there will still be statutory consultations with non-domestic ratepayers under the new legislation, but that will be pointless, because the person who will be determining the non-domestic rate will not be present at the statutory consultations because he will be the Secretary of State for Scotland.
One can visualise certain circumstances in which business men and chambers of commerce might come along to their local authority at the statutory consultation and say that they would like additional local authority services. They might want a new road built or some

improvement in community facilities which might be very useful to them. However, many local authorities, under the new regime, will have no choice but to say to the non-domestic ratepayers, "We are sorry. We would love to provide additional services in your area that will be useful for your businesses, but you must recognise that you are paying a reducing and limited contribution towards our budget, so you cannot expect us to be using poll tax payers' money to assist businesses." That will rather inhibit discussion in that forum.
The formula in clause 4 is based on a largely irrelevant multiplier, for these purposes—the retail prices index. Fundamentally, I am speaking to amendment No. 25, which would replace the reference to the retail prices index with a reference to a local government price index. Such an index exists. I understand that the Scottish Office, in its dealings with COSLA and local authorities in Scotland, works on a calculated volume measurement of local authority costs. Such a measurement can and should be made. We suggest that that is the most appropriate way of basing the calculation of the non-domestic rate under the operation of this new legislation.
8.30 pm
Businesses have been hard hit by rate increases, which have been engineered by this Government, in recent years. Indeed, I know that businesses have made strong representations on the subject. I must ask the question, how would a business man like it if his budget were to be subject to controls based on utterly irrelevant criteria which are dictated by the Scottish Office? That is what would happen to local authorities under this new formula. The consequences of that artificial calculation could be drastic, not only for the local authorities, their employees and those who use local authority services, but also—it is important to emphasise this—for the poll tax payer, or community charge payer, if the Minister insists on giving this rather cosy name that the Government have selected.
The Secretary of State took great pleasure earlier in quoting from the recent representations from the Rating and Valuation Association. I shall quote another part of what the Rating and Valuation Association has been saying to hon. Members during the last week, specifically on clause 4:
It is considered that the Retail Prices Index is quite inappropriate to Local Government's costs. An alternative (preferably specially constructed) index should be sought.
Since the increase in non-domestic rates will be limited to the retail prices index increase in September of the previous year, Community Charges will not only have to be determined by including estimated pay and price increases on that part of an authority's expenditure to be met from community charges but also to include the difference between September retail price index and estimated actual pay and price increases arising during the year on that part of the authority's expenditure to be met from non-domestic rates. In other words, the Community Charge payer will forever more be subsidising the non-domestic ratepayer.
The association said that, and the Secretary of State has seen fit to give credence to the Rating and Valuation Association in earlier debates. The Minister owes it to us to take some account of what it says on this subject.
The cost of providing local services is influenced by matters that are not covered in the retail prices index. The largest element in local authority costs is staff costs—teachers' salaries, manual workers' wages and such like. Some 60 per cent. of local authority costs are related to staff costs, wages and salaries. The next largest element in


local authority costs is loan charges, which amounts to 15 per cent. of the total. In addition, there are a range of other costs — materials, machinery associated with property maintenance, road vehicles and all the rest. None of that is adequately reflected in the retail prices index.
I have a copy of the most recent summary of the retail prices index, and it is worth referring to the prices that are taken into account in the retail prices index. The first item is food, which comes to 18·5 per cent. of the total. Alcoholic drinks account for 8·2 per cent., tobacco for 4 per cent., housing for 15·3 per cent., fuel and light for 3·2 per cent., durable household goods for 6·3 per cent., clothing and footwear for 7·5 per cent., transport and vehicles for 15·7 per cent., miscellaneous goods for 8·1 per cent., services for 5·8 per cent., and meals bought and consumed outside the home for 4·4 per cent. Precious little in that is relevant to the calculation of local authority costs. That is a point which the Minister should explain and take into account in responding to the debate. There is nothing about wages, precious little about loan charges and nothing about building materials or other items which are relevant to the affairs of local government.
The retail prices index has nothing whatever to do with local government costs, so a multiplier based on that consideration alone is bound to distort the situation. Indeed, it is the refusal of the Government to take account of the real increases in the cost of local government services in uprating rate support grant in recent years which has done more than anything else to force up rates during the years that they have been in power.
The constituency that I represent is currently contemplating a rate increase of 30 per cent. That will cover only a 6 per cent. increase or growth in services. The rest of that 30 per cent. increase in rates — in other words, 24 per cent. of the total—is accounted for by the failure of the Government to take account of the increases of costs and to increase the rate support grant accordingly.
At present, everybody — domestic and commercial entities — is contributing towards the cost of local authority services. Under this new system, the increase will be concentrated on the domestic sector, because of the way that the formula will apply. This artificial new restriction on the contribution of businesses to local authorities seems likely to drive up domestic poll tax rates at an alarming rate. As I understand it, if the business rate is frozen to this formula, which is associated to the retail prices index, but a local authority finds its costs have increased by, for example, 6 per cent. more than the retail prices index, the bulk of that extra burden will fall on the poll tax payer. A 6 per cent. increase in the cost of local authorities would be translated into an 18 per cent. increase in the poll tax.
In that scenario, the personal poll tax would be forced up from the often quoted £250 a head to £295 a head in one year. I have asked for some information from COSLA, and it confirmed that in a normal year local authority costs will increase by 2 per cent. more than the retail prices index. Some 2 per cent. of local authority costs in Scotland amounts to approximately £20 million, which would mean an increase of £6 a head to the poll tax payer. That only takes account of the suppression of the business rates under this formula.
Another imponderable is the sheer inefficiency of the poll tax system. It is quite inevitable that difficulties will arise in collecting this tax, because a significant number of people will not pay it. To compensate for that, those who pay it will have to pay more than they should. This poll

tax—of which everyone is cheerfully saying, "It is only going to be about £250 a head" — will be jacked up rapidly as a consequence of this formula, other aspects of the Government's legislation and the manner in which they intend to administer it. People who think that they will be better off under the poll tax system should be warned of the high-speed ratchet effect that the Government are building into the system. People on low incomes, who are being dragged into this new tax net, have every reason to be alarmed at that prospect.
The solution to the crisis of local government finance will have to be the restoration of realistic levels of central Government support to local authorities. That is what the Labour party is pledged to work towards. This formula is a deliberately obscure mechanism to cut the contribution of businesses to local budgets and progressively transfer the burden of the cost to the poll tax payer. We think that the whole system of poll tax is wrong. The non-domestic contribution is calculated on an unrealistic basis. We are proposing a calculation of the non-domestic contribution on a genuinely realistic basis, which would at least protect the personal taxpayer from the vicious spiral that I have been seeking to describe.
That is why I feel strongly that the House should accept amendment No. 25. However, there is a procedural problem. I intend to press the principle of amendment No. 25, but that will be rendered difficult by the effect of Government amendment No 24, which will be dealt with first, which means that amendment No. 25 cannot be voted on. Therefore, it is our intention to vote against Government amendment No. 24 to register our strong belief that variations in the non-domestic rate should be able to reflect factors which affect the costs of providing local services, which are essential to domestic householders, non-domestic ratepayers and businesses.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has made one technical and one general point. The technical argument was that the retail prices index is not relevant for these purposes. I hope that the RPI will become wholly irrelevant. The Government's counter-inflation policies may very well achieve that in the not-too-distant future, but the RPI would be extremely relevant to everybody if, by any mischance, the Opposition attained power.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist in principle the proposition that a special index should be constructed. If such an index were constructed, there would inevitably be pressure to increase the costs in it. There would be no incentive to reduce its component costs. The area of most concern would be wage costs as there would be every reason for one side of the negotiating table to push for high wage increases and no incentive for employers to resist. If local authorities, like many others, have to take account of the RPI, they are much more likely to be realistic and to resist unnecessary cost increases.
My hon. Friend explained the amendments lucidly but I did not quite follow amendment No. 23. I am not entirely sure why it is necessary to replace the formula in line 21. If my hon. Friend does not want to add to what he said earlier, I shall read carefully tomorrow what he said.
The hon. Member for East Lothian made a general point to justify dividing the House. I accept that non-domestic rates must be retained, but they have a series of economic disadvantages. If they are paid by the company, they are an overhead which is unrelated to profitability


and therefore a tax on investment and jobs. If rates are passed on to the customer—I suspect that they are at least in part—they are likely to be a regressive tax. Opposition Members have talked about equity, but that represents a tax even on the poor.
I disagree fundamentally with the proposition of the hon. Member for East Lothian because the consequences of increasing non-domestic rates are often borne wholly outside the local community. That is certainly true of industrial rates, although it is probably less true of commercial rates. There is therefore not the accountability to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The same is not true of national Government as the consequences of any taxation imposed by a national Government are felt overwhelmingly in the nation.
The non-domestic ratepayer has often been milked by local authorities. That has had a serious effect on jobs. We debated this matter in Committee when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) seemed to take the view that increases in non-domestic rates have no economic effects on jobs, although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) did not share that view. Non-domestic ratepayers require the type of protection that my right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting.

Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say what benefits are granted to non-domestic ratepayers by payment of rates? There is much business directly as a result of local authorities. There are firms which rely entirely on local authority orders. Many other companies survive because local authority employees, who are often a large proportion of the population, buy goods and services provided locally. Without that local government financial input, many companies have gone to the wall. How many building companies, for example, have gone to the wall as a result of the Government's capital expenditure cuts?

Mr. Stewart: If I endeavoured to answer that general proposition, I am sure that I would fairly quickly be ruled out of order. Capital expenditure under Scottish Office programmes has increased substantially in real terms.
Of course, there is a complex relationship between non-domestic ratepayers and local authorities. I am not suggesting that non-domestic ratepayers do not receive benefits from the services provided by local government. My argument, however, is that the consequences of increased expenditure and therefore of increased rates on non-domestic ratepayers can have serious and adverse economic consequences. It is in a sense taxation without representation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the Government's policy remains unchanged and that he will resist in principle as well as in practice the concept of replacing the RPI with a special index.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that there was some opposition to non-domestic ratepayers having local taxation imposed on them. His arguments were general and apply to any tax. They could apply to corporation tax. We can argue that that tax is profit based, but companies will go out of business if they cannot pay the rates.
I declare an interest in the Fife Regional Co-operative Society. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) displayed no sympathy for that society when he spoke earlier. I hope that we shall soon have an announcement that what has appeared in the press in Fife and elsewhere about the Fife Regional Co-operative Society is quite wrong and that the backlog of rates, which is regrettable, has been redressed. There was, however, no sympathy from the hon. Member for Fife, North-East for a commonly-owned concern.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Douglas: No.
On clause 4 the Government's amendments are of an arithmetically calculated variety. They do not strike in any way at the root incidence of this particular clause. The clause shows quite clearly that the imposition on the non-domestic ratepayer will be frozen and will be inflation related to the retail price index, as if that was the only inflation that was of interest to local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggests in his amendment that if there is to be fairness at all it should be related to what might be construed as a local authority inflator. That strikes me as perfectly fair, if we are to have this tax at all. It should relate to the expenditure and the changes in costs to the local authority.
The Government say that this is a radical and reforming measure, but they show little faith in its radical nature because they place the local authority, and especially the domestic ratepayer, in a catch-22 position.
You would no doubt call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went too far along that particular road, but in clause 24 and in schedule 3 the Government show that they are putting such great faith in the poll tax that they say that it is an increased measure of accountability and that it is such a great measure of accountability that it will call those bad spendthrift local authorities to book. However, they have such faith in it that they have to take powers to retrench and, if necessary, impose a levy on those so-called recalcitrant local authorities. So much for local democracy.
In this measure the Government have it both ways. They put great faith in this reforming measure. On the one hand they are saying that they want local authorities to be called to account, but if for reasons outwith their control costs increase beyond the RPI, that portion will be placed on the poll tax payer. Moreover, if those local authorities try to impose that burden on the poll tax payer, and if the Government consider that burden to be excessive, the Government will claw it back. So much for accountability.
The Bill — especially this clause—is a fraud perpetrated by a Government of frauds who have tried to construe this measure as a reform. When in heaven's name was there a poll tax before? It was way back in the 15th and 16th centuries. So the Tories are marching forward into the 15th and 16th centuries.

Mr. George Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on his spirited speech which has brought some life back to the debate after the deadening effect of the contribution by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has spoken in all of these debates. He speaks sometimes with great perception and wisdom and that is presumably why he is not on the Front Bench.
What puzzles us most is that he is one of the few people who served in the Government, was sacked and has not yet had his knighthood. The only explanation, given his innumerable speeches on the Bill and the lack of a knighthood, is that some sort of piecework system has been adopted by the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman must earn his knighthood by tedious but ultra-loyal speeches. Tonight he displayed that absolutely because he told the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) that he did not understand what the Minister had said. He could not understand the explanation, but he was still going to vote for it. That is ultra loyalty, and I am sure that the Patronage Secretary will be in at the time of the vote and will pay due recognition to that fact. When the day comes for turning up brief, loyal and boring speeches the knighthood will be there in the next honours list.
Nothing less than a knighthood would be appropriate as a reward for loyally sticking by every dot and comma of the Bill. As this debate amply illustrates, we see the inconsistencies of the Bill in their full, stark glory. It comes forward as a minor technical amendment moved by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale almost in his sleep as though it was something of no great consequence. We know, however, that it underlines the truly bogus nature of the whole scheme that will now be foisted on the Scottish people. It is a test bed for what will become a grandiose experiment on the English and the Welsh in the unfortunate event of the Conservatives winning another period of office.
It is predicated on a lie. It is predicated on a misconception. It is predicated on a prejudice that local authorities are all profligate with their expenditure, that all local authorities' expenditure should be condemned, that practically everything that local authorities do is to be caricatured by the minority of local authorities and has little or nothing to do with the real world which we all have to inhabit.
I am glad to say that yesterday the Hamilton district council in my constituency announced that this year it was going to cut the rate bill by 5p. Here is a Labour local authority—the composition of the council is 17 Labour members, 2 Liberal and 1 Conservative, the last being an accident in the great unanimity of my constituents which has reduced the rates this year by 5p by good and efficient husbandry of the resources, and yet it is to be caricatured with all the others that enter into the great hall of horror that the Conservatives use to justify this Bill.
One of the most bogus points of the whole argument is to pretend that, in some way, business will be relieved of some of the burdens from which it complains that it suffers. The great selling point that was just mentioned was to be the uniform business rate—that this will in some way be the great liberation of the single old ladies in tenement flats and of those widows who live in huge houses. It is also to lift the financial burden from industry. However, the majority of industries in Scotland will know that the services will still have to be paid for, and will not be conned by that.
I do not accept the bland assurances given here this evening that this is a means of relieving them of the responsibilities that they know they will have to accept. The index linking with retail prices hears out the suspicion that I am sure most of them already have. We know, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has amply illustrated it and proved it this

evening, that, inevitably, whether they are Conservative or Labour, local authorities' costs run ahead of the retail prices index. Because of the much narrower tax base which will be used under the poll tax, there will be a much greater impact on the local population. Precious few industrialists are not individual ratepayers, so they will hardly think it a great liberation if, on the one hand, business is cushioned from the increases caused by inflation and, on the other, they have to bear in their domestic rates a disproportionate part of the cost of the formula. This poll tax Bill will be no better news for industry than for the vast majority of our constituents, who will suffer from this grossly unfair and unreasonably regressive measure which has been projected solely as an election gimmick. The scheme will be costly and a bureaucratic nightmare. The consequences will fall just as much on large and small businesses as on the poorest people.
The inviolable iron link to the retail prices index which will protect business ratepayers for ever is only as good as the Minister's promises. I doubt that an industrialist or small business owner in Scotland would believe these promises—having seen the Government's record north of the border during the past six years—any more than earlier promises. This discredited, discreditable empty gimmick has been produced simply to get the Government off the hook. It will bear hardest on the weakest and poorest in the community and will finally marginalise any relevance that the Scottish Conservative party has to the affairs of the country which we represent.

9 pm

Mr. Lang: The deep opposition to the clause expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and other Opposition Members comes rather odd in this debate on a couple of drafting amendments, especially when they had the opportunity to debate their amendment, which would have left out the whole clause. We have the rather curious formula of the Opposition planning to vote against a Government drafting amendment in order to express their support for their rather different amendment. By comparison, the formula which I explained to the House earlier falls into a simpler category. I should like to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that the change being made under subsection (4) applies the same information which I gave to the House in the context of the formula under subsection (3).
As for the amendment of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), we went over this ground thoroughly in Committee. The local authority cost index, to give the index its normal title, would not be an acceptable alternative to the general index of retail prices for the purposes of clause 4. The local authority cost index is no more than an informal joint undertaking of the Scottish Office and COSLA. It could not possibly be used as a basis for determining increases in non-domestic rates without first placing the whole operation on a much more formal basis and opening it up to sufficient public scrutiny to ensure that the index would be generally acceptable as a satisfactory basis on which to proceed. The whole process of drawing up the RPI is decided by a committee, the retail prices index advisory committee, which has members representing a wide range of interests, including the CBI, the TUC and Government Departments. This helps to ensure its reliability and general acceptability.
This brings me to another reason for opposing the amendment. The RPI is a broadly based index which is widely acknowledged as a sound measure for assessing the general rate of inflation, and that could not be said of the local authority cost index. It would be far too easy for local authorities to push their costs up in the knowledge that, through the mechanism of the index, non-domestic ratepayers would be bound to meet their share of the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood made that point extremely well in warning the House to beware that type of index. This is not to argue that local authorities would take the opportunity to do so, but the point is simply that non-domestic ratepayers would not then have the same statutory protection which we have undertaken to give them.
The hon. Member for East Lothian used the word "irrelevant" to describe the RPI and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) took a similar line. I notice that, in their comments on the proposal, all their concern was with the local authority. When do we ever hear any concern from the Opposition with the business man who has to pay the rates? That is where our starting point is. When we hear of Lothian proposing to increase its rates by 29 per cent. and inflation is under 4 per cent. we can see the need for protection for the business community which exists as a cross between a milch cow and a sitting duck. The only thought that some local authorities give them is when deciding whether to milk or to shoot them, and they end up doing both.
It is necessary to impose a discipline on local authorities. The clause tackles head-on the main weakness in the non-domestic rating system in Scotland. For far too long, businesses have had to put up with the sudden, sharp and often unexpected increases which take place from year to year in their rates demands. Profligate and spendthrift local authorities have been able to make unreasonable impositions on their business communities with complete impunity because business does not have a vote in local elections. [Interruption.] I am replying to the debate. If Labour Members had any concern for the well-being of Scottish industry and commerce, they would give the clause their whole-hearted support. Instead, they have greeted it with a series of ill-informed and irrelevant criticisms which show only too clearly how little genuine concern the Labour party has for Scottish business.
The other day, we saw a report that an American electronics company was contemplating locating in Scotland, but it warned us that the one thing that would put it off would be the return of a Labour Government.
The past system lacked accountability. We have seen wide variations in rates between different authorities that have created business inefficiency and disruption of production costs. The system has been arbitrary and erratic in its impact and has undermined efficiency and competitiveness. It has concealed true costs and undermined the link between the cost of services and the cost to domestic ratepayers. We are determined to introduce a system that will have predictability and perceptibility and will give protection to the business community. In that spirit, I urge the House to support the Government's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 4, leave out from 'rate' to end of line 6.

No. 22, in page 4, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—
'(c) I is the ratio of the retail prices index for September 1988 to the retail prices index for September 1987.'.

No. 23, in page 4, leave out line 21 and insert—

'M × I × R'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 4, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
'(b) I is the ratio of the retail prices index for September of the immediately preceding year to the retail prices index for September 12 months earlier; and.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 164.

Division No. 108]
[9.05 pm


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Heddle, John


Baldry, Tony
Henderson, Barry


Best, Keith
Hickmet, Richard


Bevan, David Gilroy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hill, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hirst, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Browne, John
Holt, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Howard, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Irving, Charles


Churchill, W. S.
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Critchley, Julian
Key, Robert


Crouch, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


Fry, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Gale, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Galley, Roy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David John


Gow, Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Grant, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Greenway, Harry
Madel, David


Gregory, Conal
Major, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malins, Humfrey


Ground, Patrick
Malone, Gerald


Grylls, Michael
Marland, Paul


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Marlow, Antony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mates, Michael


Hannam,John
Mather, Sir Carol


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Maude, Hon Francis


Harvey, Robert
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)






Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spencer, Derek


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steven
Terlezki, Stefan


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Osborn, Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thurnham, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pollock, Alexander
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Powley, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Watson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Whitfield, John


Rowe, Andrew
Whitney, Raymond


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Speed, Keith
Mr. Michael Portillo.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Coleman, Donald


Ashdown, Paddy
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbett, Robin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dixon, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dormand, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas, Dick


Blair, Anthony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clay, Robert
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clelland, David Gordon
Freud, Clement





George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman
Park, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hancock, Michael
Randall, Stuart


Hardy, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Redmond, Martin


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Ms Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rowlands, Ted


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kirkwood, Archy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Livsey, Richard
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Loyden, Edward
Tinn, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Torney, Tom


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert


Martin, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Welsh, Michael


Maxton, John
White, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Gordon


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woodall, Alec


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. John McWilliam and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Frank Haynes.


O'Brien, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 4, line 38, after '(a)', insert
' "the base rate" means—
(i) the rate determined by that local authority in respect of the year 1988–89 less, in the case of a regional or islands council, such portion of that rate as they have determined to be their public water rate for that year under section 39 of the 1980 Act (which relates to the levying of rates in respect of expenditure on water supply), or
(ii) where, before 1st April 1989, the Secretary of State prescribes a base rate in respect of that authority for the purposes of this section, the amount so prescribed;

(b)'.

No. 29, in page 4, line 44, after 'of a', insert 'tenth of a'

No. 30, in page 4 line 45, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 2 on page 5 and insert
'increase or, as the case may be, reduce the sum to the nearest tenth of a penny.'.—[Mr. Ancram]

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
'(6A) The non-domestic rate levied by each local authority in respect of lands and heritages specified in subsection (8) below:—
(a) shall not exceed one half of the rate which would be leviable apart from the provisions of this subsection; and
(b) may be such lesser amount as the local authority may determine.
(6B) The lands and heritages to which subsection (7) applies shall be those occupied by a club, society or other organisation wholly or mainly for the purposes of sport or physical recreation, as the said purposes may from time to time be defined by the Secretary of State for Scotland (acting on the advice of the Scottish Sports Council and the Association of Local Sports Council) where any surplus of funds is applied exclusively to the improvement of its facilities or is otherwise applied for the furtherance of the aforesaid purpose except that any area of the club, society or other organisation that is used as a licensed bar or restaurant shall pay rates on that area, although in deciding the rate the local authority may take account of the net profit made by such bar or restaurant in any one financial year.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 178, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
'(6A) Before determining a non-domestic rate under this section, a local authority shall, in accordance with such procedure as the Secretary of State may direct, make provision for relief from rating for any lands or heritage occupied by a club, society or other organisation, not established or conducted for profit, and which are wholly or mainly used for the purposes of sport or physical recreation.
(6B) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument define any term necessary for the purposes of subsection (6A) above.'.

Mr. Maxton: As this is a debate on sport, I am sure that all hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, will be delighted to know that Dundee United is beating Barcelona 1–0—[Interruption.] It is typical that even when one tries to make a reasonable cross-party comment the Secretary of State seems to find it funny.
This is a debate that has aroused some interest and therefore I intend to be brief to allow other hon. Members to participate. What this new clause would do is essentially what Strathclyde regional council, of its own volition, has decided to do, which is to give 50 per cent. rate relief to clubs with licensed bars and premises for those parts of the ground and premises which are not licensed and do not have a restaurant. However, the local authority will take into account the turnover and profit made in the bars when deciding the rates that will be paid.
This is a sensible and moderate attempt to solve problems faced by sports clubs. It is not necessary to reiterate the problems that sports clubs have faced. However, there are many sports clubs in Scotland, especially those with licensed bars, which are finding it incredibly difficult to pay their rates bills. As a result, some are in very serious trouble.
We attempted to do something about that in Committee. I believe that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and his hon. Friends is far removed from the hon. Gentleman's very brave words prior to the debate in Committee. He suggested then that sports clubs should be taken out of rating altogether. However, he now suggests the status quo. The amendment represents the status quo with the exception only of the word "shall". Under the existing position :

A rating authority can grant relief of rates to organisations whose property is occupied for the purposes of a club, society, or other organisation not conducted for profit, which are wholly or mainly used for purposes of recreation.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxton: No, I will not give way as this is a very short debate and I want to get on.
After all his huffing and puffing and the publicity he received, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has tabled an amendment which reflects the existing practice in every local authority. It does not take us—

Mr. Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Maxton: The amendment does not take us one step forward. However, amendment No. 31, if accepted by the House, will give genuine relief to sports clubs that require such relief.
It is very important for sports clubs that the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment, at least makes it clear that he will move some form of amendment in another place. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden tried to withdraw his amendment in Committee on the basis of a supposed promise from the Minister who said that he would consider the matter carefully. There are no Government amendments on the Amendment Paper today covering that matter and that must come as a bit of a shock and a surprise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forsyth: Give way.

Mr. Maxton: I will not give way. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendment and support it.

Sir Hector Monro: I hope that tonight we shall get somewhere on this issue of mandatory derating of sports grounds. I have to remind myself that on 19 November 1966 I moved an amendment for 50 per cent. mandatory derating in the then Finance Bill which was unfortunately opposed by the Labour Government of the time. Tonight I hope that we shall make progress, bearing in mind that we went into this matter in great detail during proceedings on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act in March 1984 during which two amendments to do roughly what we are trying to do today were defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman in Committee.
We need to make it clear that tonight we are dealing with derating of sports clubs as opposed to the important issue that we dealt with earlier in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 which dealt with the very unfair valuation affecting Scottish sports clubs generally, —clubs such as Rangers and Celtic, or the Hawick and Gala rugby clubs — as opposed to the problems in England and Wales.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend mentioned different football clubs. Will he also mention Dundee United, which is doing so well tonight?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, of course. We have already cheered the good news, and we hope that it will hold its position until the end of the match.
This issue is distinct from the high valuations in Scotland compared with those in England and Wales, which we hope will be resolved sooner or later, especially if there is a revaluation in England. But if we accept, as the Government must, the principle of mandatory derating of


sports clubs—it has happened in Northern Ireland, with the distinction that licensed premises were considered to be separate from sports facilities — for the limited amount that it would cost nationally, we should go ahead with it in Scotland. I welcome what has been done in Strathclyde and Fife. Those two large authorities have taken the important step. Let us encourage the other regions to do the same. The easiest way to do that would be for the Government to introduce an amendment in another place to provide for mandatory derating.
We have heard the arguments of the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation. The Government must give a lead to show the many volunteers in sports organisations in Scotland that we shall take this important step forward to resolve the problem of rates on Scottish sport clubs, especially the unlicensed parts of those sports clubs. Sports officials will look to the result of this debate with great anxiety, so I hope that the Government will announce their acceptance of the principle.

Mr. David Lambie: I have been looking forward to this debate since the debate on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order a fortnight ago, when I told the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that he had been conned by the Government into not pushing his amendment in Committee. I have been proved correct. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) say that the Government should give a lead in another place. This is the time for them to give the lead that they did not give in Committee. Conservative Members assured us that the Government would give a lead on Report, but now the hon. Member for Dumfries is saying that they will give a lead in another place, where Members of Parliament have no say. Unless they give a lead tonight, the Opposition should support amendment No. 31.
I am one of those who believe that, at a time when the Government are cutting support to local authorities so that they cannot provide the sports facilities that they used to provide and we must now depend upon amateur sports clubs, the latter must be given concessions so that they can provide sporting facilities. I believe that no amateur sports club should be on the valuation roll, but I cannot even convince my side of that tonight, so I shall support amendment No. 31, which provides for mandatory 50 per cent. relief from rates.
I do not understand amendment No. 178, and I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what it means. But I trust that he will not try to con the Opposition as he conned his hon. Friends into withdrawing their amendments in Committee. The hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, for Dumfries, for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has had an Adjournment debate on the subject, should stand up and be counted tonight. This is an opportunity for them to stand up and, for the first time, to vote against the Government. If they do not do that, the people and amateur sports clubs in Scotland will recognise that they have been conned, just as other hon. Members have been conned by the Government Front Bench. Therefore, I ask them to stand up and be counted and vote for the sports clubs of Scotland. If they do so, we shall get support and the 50 per cent. mandatory rate. If they do not want to do

that, they will go down in history as the people who killed the amateur sports clubs in Scotland and they will never be forgiven by the Scottish people.

Mr. Rifkind: It might assist the House if I were to intervene at this stage to state the Government's position on this important matter.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with this matter in Committee and, having heard lengthy discussions, offered, without commitment, to take the problem away for consideration. The Government have been giving serious consideration to whether, and if so in what way, it would be appropriate to help to solve the real problems that sports clubs face in Scotland because of factors to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention. We have considered various possibilities and have concluded that mandatory relief for sports clubs would not be the best solution.

Mr. Lambie: Why not?

Mr. Rifkind: I am about to explain.
The amendment which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has proposed would break up the framework in the 1962 Act, a framework which clearly distinguishes between charities which are to have 50 per cent. mandatory relief and a wide range of non-profit-making bodies with worthy purposes, including recreation, in respect of which local authorities are to have complete discretion as to what percentage of relief — from zero to 100 per cent.—they should give. Charities apart, the idea of local discretion here is right and we should not seek to substitute some central view. However carefully we framed any legislation, we should be left with problems in defining centrally what category of bodies should get the relief. Those who framed the 1962 Act were right to respect the place of local discretion in making the dificult judgments that are needed. We should not depart from their basic thinking now.
However, I am determined to help sports clubs, and I propose to do so in the following way. I propose to ensure that local authorities are not deterred from due exercise of their discretion by any thought that if they grant relief to a particular club they lose income, which they then have to recover from their other ratepayers, or, after 1989, from community charge payers. If they decide to grant relief, they should be compensated by an addition to their grant. The new grant system for which clause 25 provides will enable me to give local authorities an important new reassurance in this connection. Grant distribution under the new system will take into account differences in expenditure need and in the amounts of non-domestic rate income.
I intend to measure non-domestic rate income net of reliefs given by local authorities under the 1962 Act. If that is done, giving more relief will directly increase the amount of grant that an authority gets.
As a result, after 1989 all concerned with the welfare of sports clubs, and, indeed, the local authorities, can he satisfied that if a local authority uses its discretion it will not lose a penny of its income.
But I go further. I am keen that the practical effect of the approach I have outlined should be available sooner. I have concluded that my approach will, subject to one point, make it possible to achieve improvement in the


treatment of relief by 1988—a date earlier than anything that has been canvassed by Opposition Members either in Committee or this evening. In respect of 1988–89, the benefit is rather more complicated to achieve because of the provisions governing the present rate support grant system. At present some authorities, those which in any year qualify for the resources element of the grant, have in practice no financial disincentive to grant relief. But this depends on a rather technical point. What I want to do is to ensure that we can provide for a system in 1988–89 that is as fair, predictable and universal as the system I have described for 1989–90. Therefore I will arrange for an amendment to be made in another place to this Bill so as to bring the existing grant provisions broadly into line with the post-1989 arrangements.
It may help the House if I describe some details of how the arrangements for relief will work. Responsibility for the granting of relief will remain with the local authorities. They are best placed to ensure that it is only given to bona fide sports clubs. Each autumn, the rating authorities will be asked for details of commitments made for the following year to give relief to sports clubs. Since such relief can be terminated only from the end of a financial year after 12 months' notice there will be no risk of any authority taking the grant without giving relief. Relief given to sports clubs will be subject to scrutiny by an authority's auditors in the normal way. These proposals and the legislative amendment that we shall introduce in another place will remove the last disincentive.

Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State will understand that we shall want to read what he has said because it is complicated to take in on first hearing. As I understand it, I welcome what he has said and I recognise that it is an important step forward. I accept this point about the voluntary principle and the judgment exercised by local government.
The Secretary of State said that there will be an amendment in another place for what may be described as a bridging provision. Is there any need for legislation? Should there not be some statutory mark of the general scheme that he announced in the first place? Does that not require some legislation? Will he confirm that the practical effect is that if the discretion is properly exercised with all the safeguards of auditors' scrutiny and so on, the rate income forgone will be made up completely by the Scottish Office? Will he confirm that there will not be some ill-defined addition to grant and that the total shortfall will be made up specifically?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I appreciate that he will wish to study the details before giving a detailed response. I genuinely welcome his response. There is a need to make a relatively minor amendment in another place to enable these new provisions to be available next year. However, after 1989, when revenue support grant replaces rate support grant, it is possible under the existing terms of clause 25 for me to operate by dealing with the matter in the way that I have explained without further legislative amendment.
I can confirm that the effect of these proposals will be that any individual local authority which may lose revenue which it would otherwise have received from a sports club

but for the relief that it will provide will receive additional rate support grant commensurate with the revenue forgone.

Mr. Kirkwood: On first hearing I echo the welcome that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has given the proposal. Will there be any difficulty for a club, such as the Hawick rugby club, which has a substantial licensed element to its income and premises? Will the local authority still be able to exercise discretion and take an objective judgment over the whole position of the recreational aspects vis-a-vis the licensing aspects of the club when considering granting discretionary relief?

Mr. Rifkind: Discretion will remain with local authorities, as it does at present. The only change will be that if a good proportion of authorities were to exercise that relief, they would lose revenue from clubs, which would not result in any improvement in their grant from central Government. That is the only situation that would change. Most hon. Members would not see it as particularly desirable to give relief for the licensed premises of a sports club. However, I emphasise that that is a matter for the local authority to decide and to exercise its discretion if it thinks that relief is appropriate.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State saying that if revenue is forgone by the local authority as a result of giving relief, it is his present intention that that should be made good by an adjustment in the rate support grant? If that is the case, can he tell us what assurance there is that his successor will continue such a concession? If the concession is purely discretionary and not written into statute, what assurance can sports clubs have that the concession which the Secretary of State alleges he has made will be a lasting one and not merely put forward by him at a convenient time from the point of view of an election?

Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friends have said, the best assurance would be to continue to vote for the Government who introduced the measure. I appreciate that that might not be the answer that the hon. Gentleman wished me to give. Obviously, if any future Government wished to change the policy, they could do so by introducing legislation or by asking Parliament to change the legislation as easily as by changing it in any other way. The Government are introducing this new change and we firmly intend to implement it as long as we have the power to do so.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State says that the money a local authority loses will be added to the rate support grant settlement. How will the local authority know that the money has been added to the RSG settlement if it did not know what the original RSG settlement was to be?

Mr. Rifkind: I explained earlier the way in which the system will operate, that each autumn the rating authorities will be asked for details of commitments made for the following year to give relief to sports clubs. Since such relief can be terminated only from the end of a financial year and after 12 months' notice, there will be no risk of any authority taking grant and not giving relief. [Interruption.] Obviously the House is in a curious mood because hon. Members have just heard announcements about new proposals.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way? We are suspicious of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Rifkind: I am anxious to give way, but I know that if I remain at the Dispatch Box for much longer there will be no opportunity for other hon. Members to take part in the debate.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has raised an important point which I should like to rephrase in order to get at the point by a different route. In the rate support grant settlements, there are clearly specific grants. If they go up, it is in effect a redistribution, while the total remains the same. One is merely reducing expenditure in other areas in order to make a concession. Is this new money and how can the local authorities know that it is new money and not simply money taken from another pocket?

Mr. Rifkind: The position is simple. When each year Government decide on the aggregate of rate support grant, they will take into account all the circumstances and they will have to include—[Interruption.] This is not some new principle. It is exactly the way in which rate support grant is determined by every Government, and that is the proper way to do it. I have told the House that no local authority will lose a single penny by a decision to grant relief of the kind that we have outlined. These proposals and the legislative amendment that we will introduce in another place—

Mr. Millan: The Secretary of State has not answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). At the moment, specific grants are deducted from the aggregate RSG and the net amount is then distributed as RSG. Will that happen in this case?

Mr. Rifkind: It will not be done by means of a specific grant. It will be done through the needs element next year. With regard to the new system, it will be done under clause 25. [Interruption.] That is what I said in my earlier speech.
The proposals and the legislative amendment that we will introduce in another place will remove the last disincentive any local authority may have had to withhold relief from sports clubs. I am happy to commend them to the House.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: At the end of the day I do not believe there will be more money for local authorities to support sports clubs; the global sum will be the same. However, I am happy that the discretion will be with the local authorities.
In my constituency there are some sports clubs which do excellent work, but there are others that are, frankly, only an excuse to open licensed premises. They are an extension of a pub. In my constituency there is a club, the Ranza angling club, and I do not know anyone in that club who owns a fishing rod. It exists for people to have a drink. I have no objection to people going to licensed premises, but I object to public money going into such a club. I am glad that the local authority rather than the Secretary of State will have the discretion about funding such clubs.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose—

Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way. If the Front Bench had not used so much time, perhaps I would be able to give way.
There is an excellent junior sports club in my constituency, St. Roch's Junior Football Club. That club handed over the running of its licensed premises to a committee. The licensed premises were supposed to make some money towards the upkeep of the grounds. However, the grounds and the club itself are still as poor as church mice. Thousands of pounds in takings disappeared from the face of the earth, and there was no benefit to the sports club.
I cannot envisage a situation wherein a sports club, run in such a fashion, should receive any support from the local authority. It is all very well for the new clause to state that it excludes licensed premises. However, anyone who knows anything about local bowling clubs will be aware that, at the annual general meetings, there is one faction which wants better facilities for the sports club and wishes to raise the price of drinks on the licensed premises, and another faction interested in the licensed premises and wishes to keep the price of drinks down. I hope that when support is given to sports clubs care is taken to ensure that they are bona fide sports clubs.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Martin: No, I am sorry, I will not give way.
I hope that those members of sports clubs who may read the reports of this debate will take steps to try to allow young unemployed people to enjoy the use of their facilities at off-peak times. There are too many bowling clubs, golf clubs or squash clubs — of which hon. Members are supportive— that are closed shops. Each year they put up their annual fees to ensure that only an elite may join. If we are to give subsidies, we should ensure that the clubs have a policy that allows those who are less fortunate than ourselves the use of such facilities.

Mr. Michael Hirst: It is probably rather a good thing that you have chosen to call me at this stage, Mr. Speaker, after, rather than before, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made his announcement. I am happy to be able to say that I unreservedly welcome his statement. I am certain that it is fully supported by my colleagues. The disarray and silence on the Opposition Benches is significant. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) must be regretting some of his comments. It is a pity that he did not wait to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I do not want to delay the House for more than a couple of seconds, but it is appropriate that we are talking about sports grounds when Dundee United has just successfully beaten Barcelona 1–0. There will be an early-day motion and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to sign it.

Mr. Hirst: Probably the only voice of accord this evening will be welcoming that result. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will be able to have that recorded in his local newspaper.
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend made this announcement tonight. It is the result of sustained pressure from Government Back Benchers. In Committee, we had some hard words from those such as the hon. Member for Cathcart. As I do not think that he will have a chance to participate, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who, in an Adjournment debate and since, has, with his colleagues on


this side of the House, championed the cause of amateur sports clubs in Scotland. He has at last achieved the justice that we have always sought.
The announcement underlines the importance that the Government attach to supporting the efforts of amateur sporting clubs in Scotland. Sadly, in recent years, because of high rates bills, these clubs have had to spend more time fund-raising than coaching youngsters in the essentials of their sport. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is not with us. I recognise the representations that he made on behalf of the amateur boxing clubs in his part of the world, clubs whose future was threatened by the size of their rates bill.
The hon. Member for Cathcart will remember that throughout the comments that I made in Committee I argued for the principle of discretionary relief. He was the first to tell me that rates relief should not be handed out to the Royal and Ancient at St. Andrews, to Muirfield or to some other prosperous golf club.

Mr. Maxton: No.

Mr. Hirst: Yes. The hon. Gentleman was the first to say that the result of my amendments in Committee would be to hand out money to those who did not properly deserve it. Therefore, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for arranging a scheme that will ensure that the local authority will be able to grant relief, on a discretionary basis, to clubs that properly deserve it.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he has been most anxious, as have many hon. Members, to secure an effective scheme. However, we are worried about whether the relief scheme that the Secretary of State has offered, because it is not specific, and is variable within the rate support grant formula, will give local authorities the assurance and confidence that we seek.

Mr. Hirst: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech as I did. As I understand it, the local authority would not qualify for relief if it did not make money available to amateur sports clubs. If I am wrong I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend so that he can correct me. In other words, if the relief is not granted to sports grounds local authorities will not qualify for the compensatory amount.
We must pay tribute to the sustained campaign by the amateur sports clubs in Scotland, which were the first to identify the problem, and which continuously drew the attention of hon. Members to the need to relieve the rating burden because in many instances it threatened the future of their clubs.
This is a thoroughly welcome statement. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who, when in Committee I moved amendments, undertook to take them away, consider them and, if possible, bring back some sort of scheme on Report. When he did not do so he was vilified. He has been the subject of abuse from Opposition Members, but tonight we have seen that Conservative Members care for amateur sports clubs in Scotland.

Mr. Wilson: Like many Opposition Members, I welcome the relief that has been given to the hard-pressed

amateur sports clubs, many of which were verging on bankruptcy and some of which are now having to sell land to keep going, land which could have been used for sporting purposes. Like many Opposition Members—although we do not like looking a gift horse in the mouth —we begin to wonder where the cash is coming from. The sports clubs have won, but I am not sure that the local authorities have, because it may be that in making up his budget the Secretary of State will take some cash off various things before making adjustments. If the new money is coming from the Treasury, I shall be delighted to see it.
Can I point out to the Secretary of State that this is just one battle in the war? One of the main causes of contention in the commercial sector is the huge imbalance in valuations between England and Scotland. This subject was hinted at earlier. The Secretary of State, taking the relief route, has not addressed himself to the problems which arise from valuation.
It was my intention, had more time been available, to refer the Secretary of State to Armour on Valuation, a major tome on the subject, which suggests a route for dealing with the problems of those who run the football grounds. We have heard the excellent news from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) of Dundee United winning, but the rates bill on Tannardice park, Dens park, Ibrox or Parkhead is heavy compared with other facilities in England. Therefore, the Government cannot rest on their laurels. They must consider valuation. Having said that, I thank the Secretary of State for whatever relief has been given on this occasion.

Mr. Maxton: Any relief for the sports clubs is welcome. My initial response to the statement of the Secretary of State — which was cleverly worded — was one of welcome. But having listened to the questions that he answered from some of my hon. Friends I now have several grave reservations as to whether the local authorities will ever see the money that he is prepared to give them.
Did he consult the local authorities and do they approve of the scheme? The Secretary of State was careful to say that he is removing the disincentives to giving relief, but he did not say that he was giving the local authorities any incentives to grant relief.
What the Secretary of State has done will be welcomed by the sports clubs, but I am not convinced that it will be welcomed by the local authorities.
We wish to look carefully at the scheme. We shall not make a judgment on it now. We shall return to it in another place. We do not believe that the Secretary of State, having looked at the document, will give the local authorities the money. We want to look at it, and we shall return to it in another place.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxton: If the Secretary of State will allow me, I should like to finish what I am saying. While we retain reservations about what the Secretary of State is doing, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to push my amendment to a vote. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

REVALUATION: GENERAL

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 5, line 21, leave out Clause 5.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 6

VALUATION OF PREMISES PART OF WHICH OCCUPIED AS DWELLING HOUSE

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 6, line 8, leave out from '1989' to 'resulting' in line 9 and insert
enter in the valuation roll only the part not occupied as a dwelling house, at the value'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 7

STATUTORY AND OTHER REFERENCES TO RATEABLE VALUES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 6, line 13, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

No. 36, in page 6, line 17, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

No. 37, in page 6, line 19, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

No. 38, in page 6, line 23, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

No. 39, in page 6, line 28, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

No. 40, in page 6, line 35, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.

No. 41, in page 6, line 38, leave out 'appeared' and insert 'appears'.

No. 42, in page 6, line 46, leave out 'been' and insert
'appeared in the valuation roll in force immediately before 1st April 1989 as'.

No. 43, in page 6, line 48, leave out
'immediately before 1st April 1992'.

No. 44, in page 7, line 5, leave out
',occurring on or after 1st April 1992'.

No. 45, in page 7, line 18, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 8

INTERPRETATION OF PART I AND MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 7, line 24, leave out from '"domestic rates"' to end of line 25 and insert
'means rates which are leviable on lands and heritages which are domestic subjects".

No. 47, in page 7, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 10

LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE

10 pm

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 8, line 37, at end insert
'The Secretary of State shall in each year ensure that each full time student eligible for a grant from any award granting authority shall receive from him a sum equivalent to the personal community charge levied by the local authority in which he is resident during term time.'.

Our previous subject for debate might have been more interesting and lively, but it is not the one which bears most heavily on the effect of the poll tax on the people of Scotland.
Clause 10 implements the community charge for each individual. The Secretary of State has separated students and made them a completely different category. He does not want to give them relief under the rebate scheme or to include them among people who may move in the course of their job. There are many people in Scotland who do that, including us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that community charge should be imposed on them where they are full-time students. it is not to be imposed on them at their home address and they are not allowed to make a choice between the two.
Many university students will pay more.

Mr. Henderson: Many will pay less.

Mr. Maxton: The Secretary of State has said that he is prepared to give up to 80 per cent. of the average community charge in Scotland to those in receipt of a grant. Only at Aberdeen university, however, is the personal community charge below the average. Only at St. Andrews university is it on the average. At Edinburgh, Stirling and Glasgow universities, the charge is above the average. It is not true, therefore, that university students will pay less.

Mr. Henderson: I meant that some students who currently pay rates but get no compensation in their grant will by definition be better off under the new arrangements.

Mr. Maxton: It is not necessarily true that people do not get anything off rates. A married couple in a flat, for example, will get a higher allowance because of their circumstances. If a student shares a flat with a group of people, the burden of rates is shared across all the people within that flat. Earlier we heard from the Minister the contention that students who are in halls of residence pay in rent something towards the rates. At least that was what it sounded like. If the Minister wishes to contradict that, I shall give way.

Mr. Ancram: To set the record straight, I said that those who live in flats in many cases pay rates themselves or could find themselves paying a proportion of the rates to their landlords through their rental payments. I specifically excluded halls of residence, as I understand that, in most cases, there is not a great rates element involved in what they pay there.

Mr. Maxton: I am glad that the Minister has cleared that point up, because his earlier remarks on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) were confusing.
Students who live in flats contribute something towards the rates. Those who live in halls of residence do not. Even students who live at home and who pay their parents something towards their keep contribute, or may contribute, something towards the rates. However, the Minister has stated verbally, and in the commentaries and press releases that have been put out about students, that he will be giving, on top of the awards, a certain sum of money to make up for the fact that students must pay the community charge. However, nothing in the Bill says that. That is a promise made by a Government whom I know that many students in Scotland distrust very much.
That promise may well be maintained in the first year by an increase in the student grant, but there is no guarantee whatsoever — certainly not from this Government, judging by what they have done with student grants during the past few years — that that money would be paid in any year thereafter. That is quite clear.
I have yet to be convinced by the Minister that the local authorities in England and Wales will be prepared to pay that sum of money to students from their authorities who go to Scottish universities.
That money does not cover and will not cover students who in any way finance themselves through a year or two years at university. That includes especially students who are repeating a year for any reason, perhaps because of failure. It also includes some other students who may be financing their own courses. They will all pay the personal community charge.

Mr. Henderson: On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about students financing themselves, a student has only to be eligible for a grant to be entitled to gain from this provision, as I understand it. Even if their parents pay entirely for their maintenance and they receive no grant, they will still receive assistance towards the community charge.

Mr. Maxton: That is not the way that I understand it. The Minister may help the hon. Gentleman and myself on that point, but, as I understand it, there is nothing in statute and nothing in the Bill that says that the Minister has to pay anything at all towards it. We are relying entirely upon the words of the Minister in this matter. I am trying to make the point that a student who has failed a year's studies and who wishes to repeat that year may not be eligible for a grant, or if he is eligible for a grant that year, he may well not be eligible for a grant in his last year at university because limits are put on the eligibility of grants. Nevertheless the student will still have to pay his own community charge.
There is no way in which—I accept that even with my amendment there is no way—the large numbers of foreign students who come to our universities and who are already put off by the increase in fees that they have to pay in Scottish universities, will be eligible for any help from the Scottish Office in terms of those grants.
My amendment would give to students the power to place a statutory obligation upon the Secretary of State to ensure that each full-time student eligible for grant from any award-granting authority shall receive the sum equivalent to the personal community charge levied by the local authority in which the student is resident during term time. In other words, my amendment would take the average Scottish personal community charge, put it into statute, and ensure that a student's local authority will receive the money. In fact it would give 100 per cent. rebate for students in regard to the community charge.
Students are aware of what may happen to them with the personal community charge. They think that it may be yet another disincentive to prevent poorer people from taking up full-time higher education. Hon. Members should not take that lightly. Our aim should be to encourage people to take up opportunities in full-time education. We are desperately short of skilled and educated people. Everyone who can go to university should. Any disincentive put in the path of people going

to university should be deplored, but I am afraid that that is what the Government are doing with the personal community charge.

Mr. Ancram: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and was surprised to hear him raise the matter of foreign students and students who repeat courses. His amendment—

Mr. Maxton: I said that foreign students were not covered by my amendment.

Mr. Ancram: A reading of the amendment suggests that the eligibility for the payment which he suggests is precisely the same as that proposed by the Government. The amendment seeks to require my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to reimburse all full-time students eligible for grants with a sum that would exactly cover their personal community charge liability. I cannot accept that.
Although we accept that students will require help to enable them to meet their personal community charge liabilities, it is not appropriate that that help should be provided either in the way that the hon. Gentleman described—which would be a new form of assistance—or through the social security system, because our longer-term aim is to remove students from entitlement to social security benefits and to return to the position where they depend on grants or a parental contribution and on their vacation earnings.
In that light, we have proposed that students eligible for grant, including those — this is an important point—who, because of parental income, receive no grant payments at present and who may often for that reason be some of the least well off students at university, should receive a flat rate sum each year towards their personal community charge liability. This will have regard to the level of assistance available under the rebate system for people on low incomes. The likely figure is a minimum contribution of 20 per cent., as we discussed earlier. It is likely that the same assumption will be made in the grants system.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister help me, because I am not clear about the inter-relationship between the grants system run by the Scottish education department and the system administered in England and Wales? A number of the people who will pay the personal community charge will be in receipt of grants from local authorities in England and Wales. What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with local authorities and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reimburse those students? At what level will they be reimbursed? What administration will be available for that purpose?

Mr. Ancram: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised to learn that this matter has been discussed at great length with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We would not make a proposal of this sort if we did not believe that it could be administered. Grants in Scotland effectively come from three sources. If the hon. Gentleman wishes I can, with a little notice, give him the exact proportions in which they are paid. The sources are the Scottish education department, Scottish local authorities and English and Welsh local authorities paying for students in Scotland.
10.15 pm
Having considered the matter, we believe that it will not be difficult to change the administrative rules in each case to ensure that a supplementary grant payment of the sort that I am describing could be made available to students in Scotland.
It would be quite wrong to follow the course that the amendment suggests, of reimbursing students in full for their personal community charge liability. It is a basic principle of the reformed social security system, which will be brought into effect on 1 April 1988 as a result of the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986, that all those liable for local taxation payments should make some contribution towards them. That principle has been fully debated and accepted by Parliament and will apply to all those liable for the personal community charge. I cannot see a reason for students to be exempt from that rule. The assistance that we propose through the grant system will allow them to receive help along broadly the same lines as we are providing through the rebate system for others on low incomes. The system is fair and equitable. It takes the students' position fully into account. For that reason, I resist the amendment.
The hon. Member for Cathcart went a little wide of the amendment and talked about the deeming provisions in that part of the Bill that affects students. We discussed this matter at length in Committee. I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman—it is worth reiterating it to the House—that the reason we decided that students should be deemed to be solely or mainly resident at their place of university is that, by the nature of university education, they would otherwise be capable of being registered up to six times, if not eight times in the case of Stirling university, at different residences during the course of a year. It was considered that, as in most cases students are likely to spend most of their time at their place of university education, it was simpler for their sake and administratively to have them deemed to be resident at their place of study.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister's argument is farcical. Many people, including hon. Members, live in two places at several times during the year. We have two residences, and we change our addresses weekly. We certainly move out of London during the three-month Parliamentary recess and at Easter and Christmas. It is a simple matter. The Minister has only to say that a student shall deem one place to be his sole or main residence. That is a qualification under clause 10, anyway.

Mr. Ancram: I have to be a little cautious, because that point is not part of the amendment. When we discussed this matter in Committee—the hon. Gentleman referred to the lives led by hon. Members—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) rather plaintively said that he knew where his home was. If he looks at the provisions for sole or main residence, he will see that the situation is effectively quite different in regard to a Member of Parliament who travels a great deal, as opposed to a student who is known to be in a particular place for a certain length of time and then to move to another place for another length of time. Under the provisions of the legislation, the sole or main residence could change several times during a year, to the disadvantage of the person concerned. To accept reality, apart from anything else, and to simplify matters, a decision was taken to deem them to be resident.

Mr. Henderson: This matter is of considerable importance to local authorities that have a substantial student population. Six hundred and fifty hon. Members will not make much difference to heaven knows how many London boroughs, but 3,000 students at St. Andrews will make a great difference to the economics of a district council such as Fife or a comparatively small district council such as Stirling.

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend made a valid point. The students in his and my constituencies might partake of the services provided by local authorities. It is in line with the principles of the Bill that they should be expected to make a contribution towards such services.
The hon. Member for Cathcart suggested that students should be exempted from the community charge. However, it would be difficult to justify one brother in a household, just because he is a student, paying no community charge while another brother, who might be unemployed and who would therefore be on the maximum rebate that is available, was paying a minimum contribution. Our scheme, in the form of proposals that will have to be fully worked up by the time that the community charge becomes payable, creates a degree of fairness and parity between those two categories, which I believe is right. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Mr. Douglas: I listened with interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). He is concerned about the students of St. Andrews university. We all share his concern. However, if the hon. Gentleman was truly concerned about those students, he ought to have asked his Government to sort out the problem. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not been very successful, because the problem has not been sorted out.
According to figures that I have obtained from the Library, in 1984–85 there were 9,310 full time students—8,220 undergraduates and 1,090 postgraduates—at Scottish universities who were domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I do not know what proportion of those students came from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Students will need a subvention to enable them to pay the poll tax.
It was suggested that it would be very unfair if a student in a household did not have to pay the poll tax. However, the reverse is also true. I am told that in 1984–85 there were 2,980 full-time students and 2,140 undergraduates and 840 postgraduates domiciled in Scotland who went to universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If they are domiciled in Scotland but go to a university elsewhere in the United Kingdom, they will be benefiting from local authority services in those areas, but they will not be paying the poll tax. By trying to cater for students, we are creating absurd anomalies.
Student grants cannot be discussed in this debate, lout considerable anomalies will be created, particularly in the case of those who rely on parental contributions. Many parents make no payment, and that is very hard on students. Students must be compensated in some way or another for the poll tax. Local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to receive about £3 million for students. If these local authorities have 10,000 students in the universities, how much money will students receive to enable them to pay a personal liability that is imposed upon them?
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East said that it is cleared up. I submit that it is not cleared up and unless the Minister can tell us what the position is tonight, I would imagine that he has some responsibility to get the matter cleared up in another place or certainly—I speak personally—we will be pressing for further clarification during other debates.
Students are in a difficult position and I take the general view that this is not something that we can cast aside. It is an additional burden on students, perhaps in the region of £200 or £300 a year, and it is not something we can take lightly. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East, that it may be a disincentive for students from England and Wales.

Mr. Henderson: At worst, it would have been for one year during the transition. However, now that the transitional period has been telescoped, it will not arise at all as a serious problem.

Mr. Douglas: That may mean that the hon. Gentleman has some understanding that Scotland is going to be the guinea pig for a shorter period, but one does not know.
There is an imbalance for 7,000 students, 10,000 if we take the net total, and it must be clarified. It has to be a payment that will be imposed in one way or another by English, Welsh and perhaps Northern Irish local authorities on students who come to Scotland. I ask the Minister not to be so sanguine and cavalier about it. We need much more clarification than we have been given.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that there is a need for greater clarity from the Minister as to how he envisages students being compensated to the level of 20 per cent.

Mr. Ancram: Eighty per cent.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes, to the level of 80 per cent.
The mechanisms are important and the Minister has not revealed anything tonight about how it is proposed that the moneys should be made available. It is not clear whether it is to be duty imposed upon English local authorities to pay the additional grants and whether, if they do discharge that duty, they will be compensated by central Government. It is understood that in so far as the grants come directly from central Government, students can be recompensed, but it is not clear, when the grants are payable by local authorities, whether it is to be treated as mandatory or discretionary on local authorities.
The Minister has added to the confusion felt among students as to what their position will be, not only in respect of their duty to pay the poll tax in Scotland, but as to how they will be placed vis-a-vis students in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is there going to be a period in which it is financially better for students in Scotland to attend universities in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will the extra cost operate as a disincentive to English, Welsh or Northern Irish students to attend Scottish universities?
Those matters have not been clarified by the Minister and I hope that he will take the opportunity of this debate to explain more precisely than he yet has what mechanisms he has in mind. It is plain that he has not worked the whole thing out, and I do not entirely blame him for that. However, he should be a little forthcoming about what he would wish to see done.

Mr. Maxton: I find it difficult to believe that students like hon. Members, do not know where their homes are. Most students are quite clear that their home is where they have come from, where they go home at the recess and where their parents live. I cannot see that the Minister's arguments have much validity.
As the Minister has left things now—

Mr. Ancram: I was going to explain.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says that he was going to explain, but it would have been usual for him to intervene before I rose to speak.
The point is that as things stand and as the Minister has left matters, if he pays each student 80 per cent. of the average Scottish personal community charge, a student at Aberdeen university, Robert Gordon's college of technology, or the college of education in Aberdeen will make a profit and be in pocket by about £15 a year. As I understand it, the community charge average is about £220 in Scotland and I believe that in the Grampian region and in Aberdeen the community charge will be about £170. Therefore, money will be put in the students' pockets. A student at St. Andrews university will pay roughly £44 a year because that is about 20 per cent. of £220.

Mr. Henderson: It is £39.

Mr. Maxton: Very well, £39.
A student at Strathclyde university, Glasgow university, the Glasgow college of technology, or the Jordanhill college of education or the art college and students at the other colleges in Glasgow and Edinburgh will be paying close to £100 a year. I believe that that is a very unfair discrimination between different groups of students in different parts of the country. The Minister may want to reconsider that point.
If students are to be treated in this way, there should be a statutory obligation upon the Secretary of State to provide relief to students. It is fine for the Minister to say that he will increase grants and do this and do that. However, there is no obligation in law for him to do so. Students have seen what the Government have done with their grants and quite rightly they do not trust the Government. They believe that something will probably go wrong. They may get the 80 per cent. of the community charge in the first year, but in the coming year the grant will only rise by 1 per cent. and not by the full amount of inflation. Therefore, the payment will be eroded until eventually there is no allowance for the community charge within the Secretary of State's proposals. There must be a statutory obligation.
The way in which the Minister is handling this matter will mean that there will be some students to whom he cannot guarantee the grant. I have yet to hear from the Secretary of State how he will oblige Birmingham to pay this sum of money to students who go to St. Andrews university. If two students go to Birmingham council and ask for grants to go to university and the council only has enough money to provide one grant, the council will give it to the student going to an English university which does not have the extra poll tax. The council will not allow the other student to go to the Scottish university. There is a disincentive. Much of the information that I have received on this matter has come from a member of the court of St. Andrews university who is equally not a supporter of the


Labour party. He is gravely concerned that there will be a disincentive for students to go to Scottish universities unless there is an inbuilt statutory obligation upon the Secretary of State to provide help.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must not make the English too worried about this, for two reasons. First, all English students going to Scottish universities will receive help to meet the community charge. Secondly, at the moment, a very large proportion of the English students at St. Andrews receive no grant or assistance towards their rates bills when they live in flats outside the university. In future, they will get assistance towards their community charge payments, so they will be a good deal better off twice over.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister has given us no clear idea of how he will ensure that English local authorities will pay this money. Indeed, he has given us no clear assurance that he will allow students any relief. If he will stand up and give an undertaking that this will become a statutory obligation, I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
Students certainly wish to see a statutory obligation placed upon the Secretary of State to provide such relief. The Opposition believe in 100 per cent. grants and 100 per cent. rebates for all those whose income is at a certain level. That is an issue of principle between us and the Government. The Government have not given students the commitments that they require. The provision should be statutory, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate. I had hoped to speak before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), but I waited to see whether anyone else wished to take part, and the hon. Gentleman was very anxious to speak.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked about the parental contribution and made the valid point that those students who receive the full parental contribution receive no subsistence grant and have problems. I made it clear that although they may receive no grant at present, under the scheme that we propose they would receive the supplementary grant towards their community charge. That will be warmly welcomed by the students affected. The hon. Gentleman asked what sum had been agreed. The sum will depend on the level of community charge in Scotland, upon the average of which the supplementary grant will be worked out, and on the number of eligible students. It is impossible, two years off the time when this measure is likely to apply, to give the hon. Gentleman an idea of what it will cost.
The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West, for Cathcart and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked how the scheme would be made to work. I can tell them that the awards scheme in England is mandatory. Although it is operated by the local authorities, it is under the direction of the Department of Education and Science, which compensates local authorities for the awards. We believe that it would be a simple adjustment to introduce this supplementary grant on the same basis.
The hon. Member for Cathcart is a wonderful man for spraying out figures. He suggested that, in Aberdeen, on an assumption of 80 per cent. of the average community charge for Scotland, students would be better off by £15.
I must tell him that they would be required to pay £15 rather than having that amount in pocket. He said, generally, that students in Edinburgh would pay £100. As an Edinburgh Member, I have an interest in ensuring that he gets that figure correct. It would in fact be £58—about half the figure that he suggested.
As for the scheme itself—I tried to make this clear in Committee and, in an attempt not to detain the House tonight, I did not go into as much detail—the idea is that the sum which will be made available through the student awards system will be based on the average personal community charge in Scotland each year. That is the principle which I enunciated in Committee. The proportion of that average which will be covered is likely to be in line with that which will be proposed for the rebate system that we shall debate tomorrow. Of course, there are details to be worked out before we introduce the scheme, but those are its general principles. Generally, they have been welcomed by students in Scotland, who were worried that they might have to pay the entire community charge.

Mr. Douglas: The Under-Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) of spraying figures, but he has been spraying round spurious exactitudes. He has given us an idea of what students in Aberdeen and Edinburgh might pay. Can he give us some feel of the global sum that the Department of Education and Science might be asked to pay if the provision is made statutory? Will it be £2 million, £3 million, £4 million or what?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have that figure, I can tell him that the figures I used in Committee and that I am using tonight are based on the assumptions that community charge levels will be based on current levels of expenditure. We must accept that we must make those assumptions because we do not know what the levels of expenditure will be in two years' time. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in having a global figure, I can get it for him and if he wishes, I shall write to him. But it will be based, not on an exact prediction of what the situation will be in two years' time but on various assumptions relating to current levels of expenditure.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was wrong to think that there was any serious danger of English students not coming to Scottish universities because of this, given the scale of commitment that a student is making in coming to any university and that the benefits that he will gain from coming to a Scottish university far outweigh any matters of that sort?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point. It is a strange point to raise especially when, given the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, there will be a system of community charges in England soon after that has been started in Scotland. The question of cross-border disincentives will soon disappear.
I have a great deal of confidence in Scottish university education, having been educated at universities in England and Scotland. The quality of education provided by Scottish universities is a sufficient attraction to ensure a good, steady number of recruits in the years to come. If the hon. Gentleman will not seek to withdraw the amendment, I ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 170, Noes 216.

Division No. 109]
[10.41 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashdown, Paddy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Haynes, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Janner, Hon Greville


Bermmgham, Gerald
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Blair, Anthony
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kennedy, Charles


Boyes, Roland
Kirkwood, Archy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lambie, David


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mlme E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Litherland, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Livsey, Richard


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Edward


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maclennan, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McNamara, Kevin


Clay, Robert
McWilliam, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Madden, Max


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marek, Dr John


Coleman, Donald
Martin, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mikardo, Ian


Craigen, J. M.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Deakins, Eric
Morns, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Faulds, Andrew
Raynsford, Nick


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Forrester, John
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rowlands, Ted


Freud, Clement
Sheerman, Barry


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Godman, Dr Norman
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.





Skinner, Dennis
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Wareing, Robert


Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael


Spearing, Nigel
White, James


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Straw, Jack
Wilson, Gordon


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Woodall, Alec


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thorne, Stan (Preston)



Tinn, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Torney, Tom
Mr. Allen McKay and


Wallace, James
Mr. Chris Smith.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawksley, Warren


Ancram, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Heddle, John


Baldry, Tony
Henderson, Barry


Best, Keith
Hickmet, Richard


Bevan, David Gilroy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hirst, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Holt, Richard


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howard, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Conway, Derek
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


Fry, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Gale, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Galley, Roy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David John


Goodlad, Alastair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Madel, David


Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Ground, Patrick
Marlow, Antony


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mather, Sir Carol


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Merchant, Piers


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Harvey, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Moate, Roger






Monro, Sir Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Moynihan, Hon C.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Murphy, Christopher
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Needham, Richard
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Nelson, Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Nicholls, Patrick
Rost, Peter


Norris, Steven
Rowe, Andrew


Osborn, Sir John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Ottaway, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Pawsey, James
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Pollock, Alexander
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Portillo, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Powley, John
Sims, Roger


Price, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Proctor, K. Harvey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Rathbone, Tim
Speed, Keith


Renton, Tim
Spencer, Derek


Rhodes James, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Terlezki, Stefan
Whitfield, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian



van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Gerald Malone.

Clause 10

LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsections (6), (7) and (8) and insert—
'(6) Persons who—
(a) are married to each other and live together, or
(b) live together as if they were man and wife
shall be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charges, relating to the period during which they live together, for which each of them is liable.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following : amendment No. 166, in page 9, line 1 leave out subsection (6), and Government amendments Nos. 156 to 159.

Mr Ancram: These Government amendments stem from a commitment given in Committee following upon an amendment moved by, I think, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that we would consider further the provisions on joint and several liability for the personal community charge. The view was strongly expressed in Committee that unmarried couples whose household arrangements might in many cases be very similar to those of married couples, should also be made jointly and severally liable for the charge. On consideration, we have indeed reached the view that it should not be easier—at least potentially—for unmarried couples to be able to evade the payment of personal community charge than it will be for married couples. These amendments therefore give effect to that policy.
Apart from dealing with the basic position on joint and several liability in clause 10, they entail consequential amendment to clauses 15 and 22, and schedule 2. I shall deal with the amendments in the order that they appear in the Amendment Paper. Amendment No. 155 deletes the present provisions for joint and several liability of married couples in subsections (6), (7) and (8) of clause 10, and replaces them with the provision that married and unmarried couples who live together should be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charge.
The basic anticipated criteria by which it will be determined whether a couple are living together as man and wife will be similar to criteria used by the Department of the Health and Social Security at the moment. I shall deal with this is more detail shortly.
Amendment No. 156 provides that the joint and several liability of married and unmarried couples should not be included in the community charges register. While joint and several liability exists in all cases where a couple are married or living together, we do not propose that that liability should be invoked except when some difficulty has arisen over collection of the community charges due. The appearance of a note of joint and several liability in every case on the register would therefore be unnecessary, as well as involving the registration officer in complex and arguably intrusive inquiries of all couples at the stage when the register was being made up. That was a matter of concern to some Committee members. As a consequence, amendment No. 157 deletes from clause 22 the provision that any person shown on the register as jointly or severally liable to pay any community charge shall be

entitled to inspect the entry in the register relating to each person with whom he is so liable. That no longer applies. We propose that the register will not in fact record any instances of joint and several liability, since in terms of amendment Nos. 52 and 56, which we will discuss later, there will no longer be any provision for joint and several liability between owners and tenants for the standard or collective community charges. Clause 22(2)(d) is therefore unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 make the further changes that will be necessary to the procedures for recovery of community charges as a result of the extension of joint and several liability. They exclude the use of summary warrants for the recovery of arrears dependent on the joint and several liability provisions. Instead, the local authority must first raise a sheriff court action—ordinary action or summary cause—against the married or unmarried couple for payment of the outstanding charges. This will establish the joint and several liability. In the normal case, however, we expect that authorities will seek to recover arrears of community charges by the summary warrant procedure against the individual partner. Where that is unsuccessful, or where the authority has reason to believe that it would not be effective, it will, subject to paragraph 7(5) of schedule 2, be able, in the case of married or unmarried couples living together, to invoke joint and several liability and to pursue one partner's debts against the other partner. However, that will not be possible until it has raised an action and been granted a decree from the sheriff, as I have explained. In considering whether to grant a decree, the sheriff will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the question of whether a couple who are not married are living together as man and wife. In this context a decision by a social security appeals tribunal that the couple should be jointly assessed for social security purposes may be of relevance.
These amendments have fallen consequent upon an amendment moved in Committee that rightly raised the difficulties and pressures that may be caused if married couples were treated differently from those who were living together but were not married.

Mr. Maxton: One of the points that COSLA raised with us was that by not including couples who were living together but not married we could create problems in terms of housing benefit.

Mr. Ancram: The housing benefit rules already cover that situation and will carry over in terms of the rebate provision that will be made available under this legislation.
This set of amendments, as they stand, cover the difficulties that may be caused where a couple who are living together but not married are in a position to evade payment whereas a married couple are not in such a position. Most Committee Members appreciated that that would cause problems and we all wished to avoid that.
As a result of the amendment so ably moved in Committee by the hon. Member for East Lothian, these amendments are now brought forward. I hope that they will find favour with the House.

Mr. Wilson: I welcome the changes made by the Government through these amendments. It would be wrong for a husband and wife to be treated in a different way from persons living together, and the Government have rightly accepted the arguments that were presumably made in Committee.
I have tabled amendment No. 166. I suspect that at this late stage of the proceedings, especially now that the other Government amendments have been made, there is little chance of persuading the Government to relax on the question of joint and several liability. However, I thought it worthwhile putting down a marker because if, as I understand it, the community charge is a personal tax, it should be payable by each person. The names should go individually on to the register. That is a matter of principle and it is what the Government should have provided for. I accept that the best way of proving the identity of persons living together is going against both parties in a sheriff court action, but I still do not agree with the principle.

11 pm

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman's first concern that they should not appear on the register as being registered jointly and severally liable is covered by the amendments.

Mr. Wilson: I took the point that the Government have improved on the situation through their amendments. I presume that the names of the persons who are allegedly living together will still appear on the register, as with husband and wife, although there will be no statement of whether there is liability.

Mr. Ancram: The register will have the names of every adult over 18 living at the address. Under the provision of the Bill before the amendments, a married couple would have had a distinguishing mark beside their name, probably the letters J and S, which would have signified that was joint and several liability and identified them as such. That is no longer necessary, so they will appear as names on a register against an address, just as everyone else on the register will.

Mr. Wilson: I was right to agree that the Government have chosen the correct mechanism to follow, although I disagree with the principle. It is always difficult coming in on Report, after matters have been exhaustively discussed in Committee. Although I do not press my amendment, I put down a marker, and express my opposition to joint and several liability, when the liability should be personal if the Government believe that accountability should be appropriate.

Mr. Henderson: I have two brief points to make. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I met Fife regional council recently, and it has been having discussion within the Scottish forum for rating, valuation and other revenues. My hon. Friend will know that the forum is organised for the benefit of Scottish local authorities involved in rating, valuation and the collection of other revenues. Members include all regional councils, more than half the district councils, the Scottish special housing association and two of the three islands councils. I understand that in the main these authorities are represented by staff involved in revenue administration. Clearly, the Government will take some note of what such a body has to say.
The regional council, in line with that forum, expressed two major matters of concern to me. One was that all members of the forum had unanimously recommended that domestic rates be completely abolished with effect from 1 April 1989, and that the full community charges be introduced from that date. It is with great pleasure that I find that, within days of my carrying that message to my

hon. Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced just that policy. That will also be a great pleasure to the forum.
The other point put to me by Fife regional council was more directly related to this group of amendments. Amendment No. 155 replaces clause 10(6), (7) and (8) with a new subsection (6) which says:
'(6) Persons who—
(a) are married to each other and live together, or
(b) live together as if they were man and wife
shall be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charges, relating to the period during which they live together, for which each of them is liable.'
For a number of different reasons, Fife regional council was concerned that if the definition of what constituted a married couple in the Bill differed from that in the housing benefit regulations, a range of different administrative problems could arise. I understand that there will be new housing benefit regulations in April 1988, if not at any other time.
I am looking for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill will be on all-fours and compatible with the housing benefit regulations, or vice-versa.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Will the Minister clarify why it is necessary to have the principle of joint and several liability? If the register will not distinguish between a married couple and a couple living together, I do not see the need to define a couple. Surely individuals should have a distinct liability for the personal charge? Why can the Minister not give consideration to that aspect before we conclude these stages?

Mr. Home Robertson: We briefly covered this subject in Committee. The Minister rather eloquently described it as the bidey-in element, which had been suggested by COSLA. COSLA has come in for a certain amount of vilification from Ministers during debate on the Bill. I am glad that the Minister has, on this occasion, acknowledged that COSLA has drawn the attention of Parliament to a relevant and necessary amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for coming forward with this set of amendments, which clarify the position of unmarried couples living together as man and wife.
Following the point that was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), we had quite a lot to say in Committee about the principle of joint and several liability. It rather undermines one of the fundamental principles that the Government have been laying much store by in putting forward their case for the community charge—every individual in Scotland over the age of 18 years should be liable to pay. The principle of couples being jointly and severally liable undermines a substantial part of that principle.
In an earlier debate the Secretary of State quoted a lot of figures about the alleged lack of accountability of local government in Scotland because, he claimed, relatively few people were ratepayers at present. That conveniently discounts the fact that a high proportion of people were the spouses of ratepayers, and if the two groups were put together they made a total of 79 per cent., which is hardly a minority.
I wonder what the comparable figures will be for the community charge in the future? Have the Government estimated how many couples will be jointly and severally liable? In effect, that means that only one of those partners will be paying the tax. The other member of those households will, by the Government's definition in their


criticism of the rating system, be freeloading. The Government cannot have it both ways. I would be interested to know how many people they expect to fall into this category.

Mr. Wallace: It is always difficult to intervene on a matter which has been dealt with at length in Committee.
My point relates to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) about why we should have joint or several liability. I surmise that the reason why this has been put forward is ease of collection, to try to exclude one possible means of avoidance. If that is the case, it could lead to harshness, because, as I read the amendment that the Government are now seeking to substitute, the partners would be jointly and severally liable relating to the period during which they lived together. It is not sexist to say that the consequences of one partner leaving could be more harsh if the husband leaves the wife and goes to an unknown address. The bill for unpaid community charge could easily fall on the wife, why may have no earned income of her own and depend on the state.
I do not want to start a debate about taxes being seen to be fair, but I do not think that it will generally be thought fair to give a woman who has been deserted a bill for unpaid community charge for a period when she was not living alone. The Minister might say that payment would not be enforced in such circumstances. That merely reveals the inadequacies of the system and shows that it has not been fully thought through.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked why we should have joint and several liability. In certain circumstances, spouses and partners will have no assets of their own and their community charge liabilities therefore cannot be recovered. That was recognised in certain marriages and for people whom I described in Committee, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has reminded me, as bidey-ins. Our proposals represent a reasonable approach to the problem.
I cannot envisage a sensible local authority trying to recover two charges from a partner with no assets, not least because it is for such a person's benefit that we are providing for joint and several liability. Recovery on that basis might not be possible. There is no system of taxation about which I could say, hand on heart, that there is 100 per cent. recovery, and I suspect that hon. Members could not either.
Our proposal for joint and several liability allows a local authority to try to recover a community charge from a partnership when one might have no identifiable assets from which recovery could be made, precisely because of the nature of the relationship.

Mr. Wallace: I understand the Minister's argument and accept that local authorities would sometimes not press home the charge in the circumstances which I suggested. That is a crucial admission that the House is being asked to accept a tax which is imposed on people who cannot pay it. That is a fundamental unfairness which we have identified.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman compares the amendments with the Bill, he will find that the Bill

identifies a couple as jointly and severally liable from the start. Although they get separate bills, the hon. Member for Provan will remember from Committee stage that they will be in the register as jointly and severally liable.
The amendments create joint and several liability only when recovery has proved impossible on an individual basis. We have established that the authority goes through the process of recovery via the register. When that fails, or if the authority can see that that method will not work, it can go to the sheriff to have joint and several liability declared.
That answers what the hon. Member for Provan said. He said—it had not struck me until he said it—that the weakness in the Bill had been the application of joint and several liability before billing or recovery had arisen. That is met by the amendments, so I should have thought that they would go a long way to satisfy him.

Mr. Maxton: What effect will the amendments have on rebates? If a husband is not jointly and severally liable for his wife's commuted charge, surely the wife is entitled to ask for a rebate on the basis of her income, with no relationship to her husband's income.

Mr. Ancram: I shall deal with rebates when I respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). The hon. Member for East Lothian raised the same issue in principle, and I would contend that his argument has been diminished by the amendments that have been placed before the House this evening. It would seem that he missed the opportunity to advance his argument when the issue was before the Committee. In any event, in the light of the amendments, his argument is a month too late.
The hon. Member for East Lothian asked about numbers, and I cannot tell him the number of married couples in Scotland. I can tell him, however, that there are about 50,000 unmarried couples living together in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: What is the position of a married couple who separate and continue to live under the same roof for some years before one of them leaves the domestic home?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will understand that subsections (6) and (7) are being replaced by the amendment. Subsection (8) states that the two subsections
do not apply to persons who, although married to each other, are separated and live apart.
That must be a matter of fact and circumstance in each instance.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East for reminding us that the Rating and Valuation Association forum called for the ending of transition, which has been achieved in the Bill. My hon. Friend asked about the definition of "joint and several liability" in the terms of the Bill, and I suspect that his local authority is concerned about the rebate under clause 26 as against the housing benefit rebate provisions. The rebate system that is proposed under clause 26 will be a carry-forward, effectively, with the necessary adjustments under the housing benefit regulations. The housing benefit provisions for cohabiting couples will carry over into the rebate system, and there will be the relationship with the community charge. The concern to which my hon. Friend


has referred has been expressed by a number of local authorities, but it does not come within the terms of the amendment.
The definitions of the joint and several categories within the Bill are slightly different from those within the Social Security Act 1986, but only in minor drafting terms rather than in any substantial way. The various applications of joint and several in respect of couples living together, whether married or unmarried, will have the same parentage although they might be slightly different in appearance from the provisions in the 1986 legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East is reassured.

Mr. Henderson: The definition should be sufficiently similar in the two sets of regulations so that the computer programme that is designed to handle one is able to handle the other. There lies the main problem.

Mr. Ancram: That is most important in terms of the support through the rebate schemes. Apart from possible slight variations, effectively they will be the same provisions. As to the definition used for collection, the sheriff will decide whether joint and several liability exists. It is likely that one of the matters to which he has regard is whether, under the social security provisions, the couple would have been so deemed to be cohabiting.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister assist me in clarifying the position of the sheriff when the local authority approaches him for a decision? In terms of the court's jurisdiction, will the sheriff he able to delay enforcement? Can he refuse to issue a declaration and, if so, in what circumstances? Does he have a choice?

Mr. Ancram: As I said when talking about amendments Numbers 158 and 159, just as in any other case, the local authority has to go to the sheriff—it will either be an ordinary action or a summary cause—to establish the joint and several liability. Each case will turn on its own facts. The decision will be the sheriff's. We expect that the main criteria will be similiar to those applied by the DHSS when it considers whether a couple should be jointly assessed for benefit entitlement. Obviously, the sheriff will wish to satisfy himself of that. It is right that the sheriff should take into account all the relevant circumstances of the particular case before deciding whether to grant a decree.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will that be enforced?

Mr. Ancram: The sheriff will be asked for a decree. He will decide whether to grant it. There is nothing especially complicated in that procedure. I hope that those hon. Members who invited us to table the amendment will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

LIABILITY FOR AND CALCULATION OF STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE

Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 10, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert—
'(4) The person liable to pay the standard community charge in respect of any premises shall be—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) and (c) below, the owner of the premises;

(b) subject to paragraph (c) below, if the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, the tenant; or
(c) if the premises have been sub-let for such a period, the sub-tenant,
and that liability shall, in the case of a tenant or sub-tenant be in respect of the period of his tenancy or, as the case may be, sub-tenancy.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 56.

Mr. Lang: The amendments seek to clarify and improve the position on liability for the standard and collective community charges, which will apply respectively to second homes and other domestic property where there is no sole or main resident, and to premises designated by the registration officer whose residents are very transient.
The Bill as drafted provided for joint and several liability between the owner of such premises and any lessee or sub-lessee whose lease or sub-lease was for a continuous period of 12 months or more. This was to meet the case where the owner might be difficult to trace or have relatively little direct connection with the property. On consideration, however, we have reached the view that a provision for joint and several liability in these circumstances could lead to some confusion in that, although the owner and lessee would be equally liable for the charges, the local authority might be in some doubt as to which person to approach for payment.
The amendments therefore propose a slightly different way of approaching the question, by setting out the circumstances in which the owner, tenant or sub-tenant will be liable. If there is a sub-lessee with a lease for a continuous period of 12 months or more, he will he liable for the charge. If there is a lessee, but no sub-lessee, with such a lease, he will be liable. If there is no such lessee or sub-lessee, the owner will be liable. Thus it would always be clear in any particular set of circumstances who is liable to pay the standard and collective community charge. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Maxton: The amendments make the standard charge more of a property tax. It is a tax on the use of the property and is basically a return to rates. It may be a fixed rate, but it is a rate on the property. It is a clear breach of the principle behind the idea of a personal community charge. Conservative Members should be aware of the fact—although they really do not care—that, whereas the rates on a holiday house are paid according to its size and, therefore, the number of people who might be using it at any one time, now the charge for all holiday houses will be exactly the same. Whether the holiday home is
Balmoral or a tiny flat somewhere in Newport, basically, the rate will be the same. Someone in Newport will pay a higher standard charge on his little property than the Queen will pay at Balmoral. It clearly is a property tax.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is wrong, but after 125 hours in Committee I doubt whether I shall change his mind now. It is not a property tax, but a charge for the services to which properties have access.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 10, line 19, leave out from 'be' to end of line 27 and insert 'the personal community charge'.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the clause concerns second home owners,


particularly holiday home owners. It has always been recognised that there is a need for special provisions to deal with them. No arrangements are made for second homes. There is clearly a loss of income to local authorities from previously rated properties, despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the owners of second homes use local services. They typically do not use all local services such as education or social work, but they rely on police and fire services. On the whole, second home owners make a little use of local authority services for limited times of the year. A few years ago, the estimated number of second homes in Scotland was about 17,300, the owners of about 65 per cent. of which were usually resident in Scotland.
I accept that the Government have listened to the arguments about the issue. The Green Paper proposed the standard charge, which would be two units off the personal charge. Clause 12 now proposes that the standard charge should be between one and two times the personal charge, subject to the discretion of local authorities. That proposal allows authorities a multiplier of between one and two in the case of small second homes or when the encouragement of seasonal visitors is important for the local economy. The effect of amendment No. 53 is that the standard charge will be equal to the single personal charge. Therefore, it pushes one step further in the direction in which the Government have already moved.
I accept that there is a balance of argument. There is something to be said for giving local authorities discretion. However, it inevitably leads to a complicated system. It means that from year to year local authorities could, for whatever reason, change their position on one personal community charge and two personal community charges for second homes. That would mean an extra burden. Given that the second home is typically small, that it is typically used only on a seasonal basis, and that its users do not put a burden on many local authority services, notably education, which is the biggest single expenditure item in local authority budgets, it would be simpler if my hon. Friend the Minister were able to accept that the standard charge should be the same as the single personal charge.
This issue is important to many areas of the country, notably Dumfries, Galloway, Upper Nithsdale, Argyll, Angus, East, Tayside, Fife, Moray and other areas. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it is of importance to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie).
This is an issue on which my hon. Friend, if he is in a generous mood tonight, could make a gesture which would be important to rural economies. It would be a little extra boost for tourism and would encourage construction in certain areas. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to accept at least the principle of amendment No. 53.

Mr. Ancram: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) very carefully. I know that he is very concerned about this matter. It might help if I were to explain to the House again the basic purpose of the standard community charge. It is to be payable by owners or long-term tenants of domestic property in which there is no sole or main resident. In that kind of case the abolition of domestic rates would mean that local authorities would inevitably lose revenue, despite the fact

that local authority services are provided for the owners or tenants of homes in this category. The standard community charge is not, therefore, a property tax but a contribution towards the cost of local authority services that are enjoyed by the owners of second homes, particularly those services that relate to property.
11.30 pm
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) keeps telling me that he does not have a second home because he does not rent the house to which he goes in Arran for long enough for it to count.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood was quite right when he said that the Green Paper suggested as a basis of consultation that the standard charge should be set at a level equivalent to two units of the personal community charge in the area of the second home. The intention of the Green Paper was to ensure that over the country as a whole the charge would give broadly the same yield as the domestic rates paid at present by the owner. However, we recognised that local authorities may wish to set the standard charge at a level lower than two units, should they take the view that, in local circumstances, that level would be too high. That is why a range for the multiplier is provided of between one and two.
In a sense, my hon. Friend's amendment recognises a possibility that is already in the Bill, as drafted. A local authority could have regard to the needs of a rural area and to the general economic situation within its area and it could opt for a standard charge that was the equivalent of one personal community charge, as the amendment suggests. However, the amendment would remove a local authority's discretion in an area where a variety of different circumstances could apply and would therefore make the Bill's provisions much more rigid than they are.
I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said and I appreciate his concern, but on balance local authorities' scope for variation of the standard community charge should remain as it is set out in the legislation. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, I hope that, although my hon. Friend may be a little disappointed that I have been unable to be as generous as he had hoped, he will be prepared to seek to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Maxton: I am delighted to hear that the Minister is not accepting the amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). It would have made the position regarding second homes even worse than it is now. The disparity between people's income, the size of their properties and what they would have been asked for bears no relation to their ability to pay. Balmoral would have been classified as a holiday home. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment had been accepted by the Minister, the Queen would have paid the very princely sum of £160 a year for that property. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) keeps muttering that that is ridiculous, but it happens to be a fact that at present the local authority receives from the royal family £3,300 a year in rates. If the hon. Gentleman had had his way, it would have received only £160 a year.

Sir Hector Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxton: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. That figure of £160 would also have been paid by somebody who owns a very small holiday cottage in the same area. That would have been a quite ludicrous


differential, and it would have been true of the hon. Member for Dumfries and his flat in Edinburgh. I presume that he has only one second home; perhaps he has more than one. At present he pays large sums of money in rates. I presume that under this amendment he would have paid a very much smaller amount of money in rates.

Sir Hector Monro: Has the hon. Gentleman added up the number of permanent residents at Balmoral? If he had he would realise that rates would be at least a four figure sum, perhaps more.

Mr. Maxton: The difference is that at present the Queen and the royal household are responsible for paying the rates and the people who live as permanent residents are not. Under this system, the Queen would pay £160 and every individual who lives there would pay his own personal community charge. The fact is that there is no differential in the standard community charge. Like the personal community charge, there is no differentiation in terms of people's ability to pay, the size of their property or whatever. Along with the rest of this tawdry Bill, it is something that is — [Interruption.] The Minister says that I am admitting that I am wrong. I am not admitting that I am wrong. What I am saying is absolutely right. Balmoral is a holiday home and so is the tiniest flat in Millport.
The amendment would reduce further people's contribution towards local authorities in terms of second homes — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) can describe anybody as a fool, or whatever else it was that he might have said, but I would rather be a fool than the unctuous creep that he is.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With the leave of the House, I am tempted to respond to several of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I am amazed that he took four minutes for something that could have been said in 20 seconds. It was a trivial contribution to the debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he said, although, as he suggested, I am slightly disappointed that he has take the line that he has. However, in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 53.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—
(12) The person liable to pay the standard community charge in respect of any premises in respect of a financial year shall be entitled to recover from any person to whom he lets or sub-lets the premises or whom he permits to occupy them an amount equal to the portion of that standard community charge which, calculated by apportionment on a daily basis, accords to the number of days in that year for which the premises are let, sub-let or occupied by that other person (and such an amount is referred to in this section as a "standard community charge contribution").
(a) shall be in addition to any obligation of his to make other payments (whether by way of rent or otherwise) in respect of the premises in respect of which that contribution is made;
(b) is not affected by any enactment relating to the control or restriction of any such other payment, and shall not, for the purposes of any such enactment, be regarded as such a payment or part thereof.'.
This amendment will improve the provision to be proposed in the standard community charge to be payable in respect of second homes and similar property where

there is no sole or main resident by putting it beyond doubt that the person liable for the standard community charge may recover contributions towards that charge from tenants and others, such as holiday visitors, whom he permits to occupy the premises for short periods.
Where the tenancy or any sub-tenancy runs for a continuous period of more than 12 months, the tenant or sub-tenant will become liable for the standard community charge on the assumption that the property remains a second home and has not become his own sole or main residence.
The provision of the amendment will allow tenants with shorter tenancies or informal occupation arrangements to be required to make some contribution towards the standard community charge for which the owner, or long-term tenant of the premises is liable. It is right that there should be some provision to that effect since people who occupy premises of that sort for short holiday lets and similar arrangements will be making use of local authority services during the period of their residence.
The amendment makes it clear that, like the collective community charge provided for under clause 13, payments should be in addition to and not part of any rent or similar payments made by tenants or occupiers and they will not come within the control of the Rent Acts. However, the amount payable will be restricted to the proportionate amount of the standard community charge relating to the period for which the premises are let.

Mr. Maxton: I find this a rather interesting amendment and one in which I have to declare a personal interest as someone who, for six weeks of the year, rents a cottage on the island of Arran. As I understand it, the owners of that or any other cottage in similar circumstances, certainly on islands off the west coast of Scotland and elsewhere. where the owner normally lives in the cottage for eight months of the year and lets it for the other four months, will be liable to a charge for those four months. They have a personal community charge based on that being their sole and main residence. Along with everybody else, they pay that personal community charge and nothing but that charge.
We are not considering a second home here—at least I do not think that we are, although I do not understand the exact position. It is not a second home, and a personal community charge is payable on that house. However, the owners move out for four months of the year and are entitled to charge me or any one else who uses the house for part of the community charge for the period during which we use the services of the local authority. The owners will be able to offset some of their own personal community charge. This is a very difficult position. Is it not a second home when the owners are living somewhere else?
Many of these owners have a but-and-ben at the back of the house into which they move. Which property is the owner paying the charge on? I do not think that the Minister has clarified how the charge is paid. The more appropriate way to deal with the matter would be to consider that property for the four months of the year in question as a non-domestic property and it could be charged accordingly.

Mr. Lang: The amendment is to clause 12 which relates to the:
Liability for and calculation of standard community charge.


I made clear in introducing the amendment that it adds new provisions to allow for the recovery by persons liable for the standard community charge. It does not relate to the personal community charge.

Mr. Maxton: I still think that the Minister has not completely cleared up the whole position of—

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman does not understand.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, I understand exactly what the Minister said. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is trying to be his usual shallow clever self.
Ministers still have not cleared up the position with regard to holiday homes which are first homes which are then sub-let. It is not at all clear where that fits in. When I go to Arran now I am not sure whether I will get a bill separately itemised to cover the time that I used local services. Do I pay nothing towards those services? If I rented on a commercial basis from someone letting a second home, I would be paying something towards the local services. However, if I take a house from someone for whom that house is the normal first home, I will contribute nothing. This is a very confusing position. I do not believe that the Minister is clear about it.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. Does he realise that in the circumstances that he has described the probability is that the individual letting his permanent home for the period as a holiday home is probably not declaring that income for income tax purposes?

Mr. Maxton: That is a completely separate matter. The hon. Gentleman is saying that not only will they receive their personal community charge rebated by charging that person for letting the house, but will also not pay income tax. Obviously, that is a matter for the courts to test, but I do not believe that that happens, and it is a smear on the people from whom I rent the house as they are my friends.
Under the proposals, will someone who owns a cottage or a house as a second home and allows friends to use that house have to charge his friends? I suppose he will not have to. However, the Government have got themselves into a mess on the whole question of the standard community charge and second homes. They do not know what they are doing. They have not worked it out. If they had wanted to introduce a personal community charge they would have done better to leave second properties within the non-domestic sector and charged rates upon them. That would have been a better way of handling the position. However, because of the Government's dogma in terms of introducing a community charge, they have failed to do that.

Mr. Henderson: Fife regional council has made a small administrative point, which may more appropriately be raised in relation to the next group of amendments, but which relates to clause 12(8) as well as to clause 13(8). That is the determination of the multiplier. Fife regional council asks that the multiplier should be restricted to two decimal points. I put this hesitantly, because I think that it is within the power of the local authority to determine the multiplier, but I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's reassurance on the matter.

Mr. Lang: I am not sure how my hon. Friend's inquiry relates to this amendment. I should be happy to discuss with him the operation of the standard community charge multiplier, but it does not apply in the context of this amendment, and I might be ruled out of order if I developed that theme. However, I shall discuss it with him later.
11.45 pm
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is debating the wrong problem in the wrong circumstances, because what he is worried about is not what we are debating or what the amendment provides. In answer to his question about the owner of a holiday home having to charge friends to use it, I should say that there is no obligation to charge friends in this context, but if the holiday home is subject to the standard community charge, the provision would enable the owner to recover that part of the charge that was quantifiable in proportion to the number of days for which the property was let. But if he was lending the house to someone, it is unlikely that he would do that.
It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances and the arrangements into which he enters in Arran. Suffice it to say that, if the property that he occupies is owned by a person who is liable to pay the standard community charge on it, the provisions of the amendment would apply, but not otherwise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

LIABILITY FOR AND CALCULATION OF COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY CHARGE

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 11, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert—
'(4) The person liable to pay the collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) and (c) below, the owner of the premises;
(b) subject to paragraph (c) below, if the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, the tenant; or
(c) if the premises have been sub-let for such a period, the sub-tenant,
and that liability shall, in the case of a tenant or sub-tenant be in respect of the period of his tenancy or, as the case may be, sub-tenancy.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 11, line 34, leave out from 'in' to end of line 35 and insert
'the register as having effect in relation to the premises'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 86.

Mr. Lang: The purpose of these amendments is purely technical.
Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 13 relate to the calculation of the total amount payable by way of collective community charge in respect of any premises in respect of any financial year. Subsection (7) provides the basic method of calculation. It says simply that the amount due is the personal community charge times the multiplier. Subsection (8) deals with what happens when the multiplier changes : it provides that in those circumstances the amount due for the year can be calculated at any point in time on the basis that there will be no further changes in the multiplier for the rest of the


year. Taken together, the two provisions will enable the local authority to calculate at any moment how much an individual liable for the collective charge is still due to pay, and to issue demand notes accordingly for the remainder of the year. Clause 21(c) deals with the fact that the multiplier specified in the register has having effect is to be conclusive.
The amendments do nothing to change that basic approach. They simply recognise that, under clause 17, amendments to the register can be made with retrospective, immediate or prospective effect, so there is the possibility that the existing terminology used— the multiplier
specified in relation to the premises in the register
—may not be sufficiently precise. The effect of the amendments is to make it clear that the figure which is to be used in the calculation in respect of any period of time and the figure which is to be conclusive, is the multiplier which has effect in relation to that period of time.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 11, line 37 leave out from first 'in' to 'is' and insert
'the register as having effect in relation to any premises'.

No. 59, in page 11, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert
'new multiplier shall remain in effect in relation to those premises from the date when it takes effect until the end of the year.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 12, line 15 after 'situated', insert 'which'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 61.

Mr. Lang: These are purely drafting amendments designed to ensure that there is no confusion within subsection (11) of clause 13 about the calculation of the collective community charge contribution.
As the subsection stands, the collective community charge is defined as a portion of the amount of the personal community charge calculated by apportionment on a daily basis according to the number of days for which the individual liable to pay is resident in premises subject to the collective charge. The parliamentary draftsman considers that it is more precise to change the wording so that lines 15 and 16 read,
which, calculated by apportionment on a daily basis, accords to the number of days for which he is so resident.".
This new terminology makes no difference at all to the policy intention or intended effect of the subsection and the changes are necessary simply to make the drafting more precise. The form of words which would result from these amendments is the same as new subsection (12) of clause 12 inserted by Government amendment No. 54 a little earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 12, line 16, leave out 'according' and insert 'accords'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 12, line 45, at end insert—
'(17) A person to whom there has been paid, by way of a collective community charge contribution, any sum which (for whatever reason) is not due shall repay that sum.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 138.

Mr. Ancram: Concern was expressed in Committee about the possibility that an individual might find himself

in double jeopardy as a result of the operation of the collective community charge provisions. The argument, if I can summarise it, ran as follows.
The collective community charge is payable in respect of premises that are used as the sole or main residence by the people who live there but whose residence is so transient that individual registration is not a practical proposition. The amount of the collective community charge is to be based on a multiplier, determined by the registration officer taking into account the number of people who use the premises as their sole or main residence. Views were expressed in Committee that the registration officer might set the multiplier too high, thereby placing pressure on landlords to recover collective community charge contributions from the highest possible proportion of their residents and that that might lead to undue pressure on those residents to pay the contribution even if they were, and continued to be, liable for and paying the personal community charge somewhere else. In practice, we do not think that the registration officer will act unreasonably in that way. We expect there to be a process of negotiation between landlords and registration officers and that if, for example, the landlord can demonstrate that the multiplier was too high in some part of the year there will be room for some give and take to ensure that, broadly speaking, the amount that he is due to pay for the year as a whole comes out about right.
There may be a more real fear that a small number of landlords will routinely seek to recover collective community charge contributions from all their residents, thereby hoping to make a profit. They will be required to keep records and issue receipts, and the residents may well be applying to the local authority for rebates, so it is unlikely that the registration officer will remain in ignorance of the situation for long, and he will then be able to adjust the multiplier.
We accept, however, that where hard cases arise it is important to ensure that individual residents have proper rights of redress and that is why this provision is being written in, following the comments made in Committee. It ensures that an individual who pays a personal community charge contribution to his landlord in circumstances where he was not liable to do so can recover it from the landlord. That point was specifically raised in Committee. Where an individual has difficulty in doing so, he would be able to take the case to the sheriff who will, under the new system, be the avenue of appeals in relation to other community charge matters and will be well placed to deal with such cases.
Amendment No. 138 puts it beyond doubt that, in the more general case where payments have been made by way of community charge but were not, in fact, due, the levying authority should repay the sum in question. Such circumstances could arise, for instance, where a successful appeal had been brought against registration for liability for any of the community charges. Again, some concern was expressed in Committee that the provisions of the Bill as drafted would not in fact allow levying authorities to repay money in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will remember the representations that were made. These amendments put the matter beyond doubt. They are useful amendments and I hope that the House will accept them.

Mr. Maxton: I welcome the amendments because they go some way towards solving the problems that we raised


in Committee. We made those problems clear in Committee but they were largely pooh-poohed as being irrelevant, unnecessary and every other word that the Minister could find. He made no suggestion in Committee that he was prepared to consider amendments such as this.

Mr. Ancram: That is ungracious.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, I am ungracious because that was the Minister's attitude throughout the Committee stage. If he expects me to start being gracious now, he can think again. These are welcome provisions. However, I am not quite sure how individuals will be traced or what obligation there is on an owner to ensure that people are traced and the money repaid. Perhaps we shall have to find that out by due practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

COMMUNITY CHARGES REGISTRATION OFFICER

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 13, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) A regional or islands council may appoint such additional number of depute registration officers as they consider necessary to enable the registration officer to perform his functions under this Act, and any depute registration officer so appointed shall have all the functions of a registration officer.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 15

COMMUNITY CHARGES REGISTER

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 13, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
'(1) There shall be two community charges registers for each registration area. The public register shall specify.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following : Government amendment No. 70.
Amendment No. 71, in page 13, line 38, at end insert
'The private register shall specify such other matters as may be prescribed.'.
Amendment No. 72, in page 13, line 39, leave out paragraph (e).

Mr. Home Robertson: This proposal would provide for two separate sets of information for the poll tax register. There will inevitably be a mass of peripheral information associated with the register, some of which should be treated as confidential. The sort of points I have in mind are whether a person has a second house or another address, whether someone is a student, whether someone is in hospital, whether someone is in prison and, indeed, the date of birth of the person concerned. That is not the sort of material one would want to see on a publicly available register. It would be useful if the Minister could acknowledge that such peripheral information could be maintained as confidential information.
Included in this group of amendments is the Government's intriguing amendment No. 70 which states :
Page 13, line 34 [Clause 15], at end insert—
'(d) in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth;'.
I would be grateful if the Minister can take this opportunity to say what is meant by a "natural person"

and whether there are any unnatural persons in Scotland for the purposes of this legislation or anything else. Will he also say if, whether they are natural or not, he would want their birthdays to appear on the public register?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was right to say that there are some details relating to the entries in the register which are confidential and which it would not be desirable to disclose. His approach to the matter is somewhat different from the Government's.
These amendments appear to be designed to establish what registration details for community charge purposes should be made public and what should not. These matters are dealt with in clause 22 rather than in this clause. I must first explain that, while we accept that some parts of the register should be open to public inspection and others should not, we consider that it would be an unduly inflexible approach to specify that there should be two separate registers. Instead, the approach embodied in clause 22 allows for a single register which is available for inspection to different degrees depending on the need and desirability for different categories of people to have access to different parts of the register. We envisage that the names and addresses contained in the register should be available for public inspection. That is right, since it is in the general public interest that a public record should be available for all those who are liable to pay any of the community charges : for the same reasons, the valuation roll is at present open to public inspection.
These amendments would, however, extend the scope of the public register by allowing it to reveal also which of the community charges was payable by each person, and the date of each person's liability. We do not consider that it is necessary for these details to be publicly available. It would, indeed, be positively dangerous for details of which community charge was payable by each person to be publicly available, since that would allow anyone to establish clearly where a standard community charge was payable, and, therefore, where houses could be found which were likely to be empty for considerable periods. That would come very close to being a burglars' charter, and for that reason, if for no other, we cannot support the amendments.
The contents of the register which we envisage being prescribed under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) includes such points as whether a person is a student for the purposes of clause 10(4) and (5), and whether child benefit is payable in respect of any person listed in the register. We shall be considering in due course, in consultation with local authority interests, what other details need to be specified in the register. But we are clear that the power of prescription will not be used to add further details which will be publicly available. Clause 22(2)(a) clearly sets out the restriction on the public availability of information, and the power of prescription will not be able to change that.
Amendment No. 70 stems from further consideration of the requirements for the detailed content of the register. In this we have been assisted by the views of local authority practitioners as expressed through the Rating and Valuation Associations rating forum.
It has been pointed out to us that in order to assist the identification of individuals it would be desirable for the register to record in all cases the date of birth of people who are liable to pay any of the community charges. In the


simplest instance, this would allow people at one address who shared the same name to be clearly distinguished. For instance, there might be three John McTaggarts, father, son and grandson, at a single address and for billing and collection purposes it should be made clear which is which. The information would also be useful to check the identity of a person when he moves from one local authority area to another, otherwise it would be difficult for the registration officer in the new area to be sure that the John McTaggart who was recorded as having arrived in the area—

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 13, line 34, at end insert—
'(d) in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth;'.

No. 156, in page 13, line 39, at end insert—
'(1A) There shall not be specified in the register any information relating to a person's liability, by virtue only of section 10(6) of this Act, for a personal community charge.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 17

AMENDMENT OF REGISTER

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 14, line 17, after 'that', insert—
'(a) the maximum period for which an amendment can be made with retrospective effect is three years; and
(b)'.

No. 74, in page 14, line 19, leave out from 'premises' to the end of the subsection and insert
'shall be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed. after the date when the current entry is made or takes effect, whichever is later.'.

No. 75, in page 14, line 27, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 18

REGISTRATION APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 14, line 46, leave out from 'who' to 'to' in line 48 and insert 'is registered in the register as being liable.'.

No. 77, in page 15, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
'(a) against any entry or amendment of an entry in the register in respect of his liability to pay any of the community charges,'.

No. 78, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert—
'any sheriff of any sheriffdom which wholly or partly falls within the registration area.'.

No. 79, in page 15, line 21, leave out from 'sheriffdom' to the end of the subsection and insert
'which wholly or partly falls within any of the registration areas.'.

No. 80, in page 15, line 32, at the beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (7A) below'.

No. 81, in page 15, line 35, at end insert—
'(7A) Where a person is registered as being liable to pay the personal community charge in two or more registers and he has appealed against one or more registration, he shall be required to pay only the personal community charge relating to the first registration made, pending the determination of the appeal.'.

No. 82, in page 15, line 39, leave out '18(3)' and insert '18'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 19

DUTIES IN RELATION TO REGISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (5) to (12).

No. 162, in page 16, line 22, leave out 'responsible'.

No. 163, in page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (6).

No. 164, in page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (9).—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 20

OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 17, line 42, leave out
'and may request the registration officer to amend the entry.'.—[Mr Ancram.]

Clause 21

EFFECT OF REGISTER

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 18, line 27, at the beginning insert
'Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and 29 of this Act,'.

No. 86, in page 18, line 33, leave out from the beginning to 'in relation' in line 34 and insert
'specified in the register as having effect'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 22

INSPECTION OF REGISTER

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 19, line 8, leave out paragraph (d).

No. 87, in page 19, line 38, after 'copy', insert
'(other than a copy made available for sale under subsection (4) above)'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Housing (Bradford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]

Mr. Max Madden: Tonight in Bradford, families have gone to bed in 32,000 homes that are in need of major renovation. There are about 8,000 men, women and children on the council's waiting list. In 5,000 so-called homes without running water, an inside toilet or a bathroom, people wonder how much longer they will have to endure such conditions. Hundreds of tenants with children have been rehoused after being moved from homes that were structurally defective.
There are thousands of council tenants whose homes are in urgent need of modernisation and repair, and there are tenants anxiously awaiting a transfer. The homeless are being shunted around poor bed and breakfast hotels, hostels and other poor accommodation. Thousands of low-income owner occupiers desperately want improvement grants to provide their homes with basic amenities. Elderly people, single people and families and private tenants in multi-occupation accommodation are living in conditions which are often dangerous, and those people often face harassment and extremely poor living conditions.
These stark and simple facts spell out the gravity of Bradford's housing crisis. About 7,000 council homes in Bradford have been sold, and building programmes come nowhere near replacing the homes that have been sold. The local newspaper, the Telegraph and Argus, in a dramatic series of articles last December, printed the figures for new house starts and completions in Bradford, and they clearly show the decline in building in the city.
In 1977–78 there were 975 starts in local authority building, and in each year since then the number has fallen. The figures are: 998, 297, 290 and in 1981–82 there were no starts whatever. In 1982–83 there were 42, in 1983–84 there were 59, in 1984–85 there were 45 and in 1985–86 there were just 50. For most of that period, certainly since the beginning of this decade, the local authority was under the control of a Conservative, SDP-Liberal alliance. The city's population is increasing dramatically and authoritative forecasts say that by 1996 we shall need to provide homes for an extra 11,000 people.
The latest estimates are that we need to build 1,400 houses a year in addition to the normal building level.
Bradford needs more money from the Government to build more new homes and to make more improvement grants available to improve and renovate older homes. We need agreement from the Government to spend more of the money received from the sale of council homes and land so that Bradford can spend more of its money on better housing provision in the city. Bradford needs permission to use private finance, for example from building societies, to finance the building of new homes and the renovation of older homes, many of which are well-built and large. They represent desirable accommodation for larger families and could help to regeneate the inner city and persuade more people to stay in the city.
I much regret that the Prime Minister recently refused my request to meet a broadly based deputation, which consisted of the city council, the chamber of commerce, the trades council, the university and the ethnic minority

organisations, to discuss the full range of the city's problems, including our housing crisis. Had the Prime Minister agreed to the meeting, she would have heard that, in parts of Bradford, it now costs more to build a new home than the price at which that new property may be sold. A three-bedroomed semi-detached house in Manningham would now cost at least £10,000 more to build than the price at which it could be sold. That is the major deterrent to any developer—public or private—building new homes in inner-city Bradford.
When I wrote to the Prime Minister to request the meeting I explained the difficulties that Bradford faced in providing homes for its people. On 23 February the Prime Minister replied:
As in 1986/87, Bradford's initial HIP allocation may be supplemented by additional allocations for schemes on rundown council estates drawn up in conjunction with the Department of the Environment's Estate Action team. In 1986/87 Bradford has received additional approvals for Estate Act schemes amounting to £2·4 million and I would expect the Council to look to this opportunity to supplement is housing allocation again in 1987/88.
That is welcome, but it is wholly insufficient to meet the problems that we face.
The total dependence in Bradford on free market forces creates monstrous obstacles to our people's ability to live in the inner cities in either council or private homes that they can afford to rent or in homes that they can afford to buy.
The verdict of the market place on property values reflects many factors—levels of employment, levels of economic activity and levels of economic prosperity. Bradford and many of its people are extremely poor. One in five of my constituents are unemployed, and in parts of the district unemployment soars to 50 or 60 per cent. A third of the population are in receipt of benefit. Workers in west Yorkshire receive the lowest pay of any region in the United Kingdom.
Hence, on a day when we hear that property prices have increased by record amounts in London and the south-east, and Conservative Members in the south are protesting about property development in their plush and prosperous areas, I must come to the House to tell the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction that in inner-city Bradford houses now cost more to build than the price at which they can be sold. So much for the north-south divide. It is in housing that that divide is most grotesque.
A sensible, caring, compassionate Government with genuine concern about our people's quality of life would recognise that they must intervene in the market if families in Bradford will be able to live and hopefully work in the inner city. If all our people are to be properly housed, the Government must be forced out of their uncaring complacency.
At Question Time today a visitor from Mars, having listened to Ministers, might be forgiven for thinking that our housing crisis could be solved if only councils let every empty house, rent controls were swept away and hundreds of hostels were provided for the homeless. We desperately need new thinking, new ideas and new approaches. Above all, we need homes for the homeless and good homes for all those living in desperate housing need. We must urgently devise new ways of funding inner-city housing. Local councils should no longer be in the straitjacket of annual housing programmes with the 60-year loans and conventional interest rates.
Why cannot there be some new machinery such as a revamped Public Works Loan Board, offering finance at preferential interest rates for new building and renovation? It would require a dynamic and flexible approach, working in full partnership and co-operation with local councils. A decent home, at a rent or price that can be afforded, is surely a modern right, as central to any civilised society as the right to work, to food and warmth, to free health and to universal education. Far too many of my constituents and other citizens of Bradford are living in rotten housing conditions and have no work. Because they are forced to stay in a lot, their electricity and gas bills are extremely high. Many have their fuel supplies disconnected because of arrears that they are unable to pay. Their children go to schools that are crumbling and in some cases literally falling down. Illness, nervous stress and marriage break-ups are becoming of increasing concern.
Many of these people hear the chairman of the Conservative party tell them to get on their bikes and go to where the work is. Those who do find work away usually cannot find anywhere in which they can afford to live. Today, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his laid-back way, advised the homeless in London to move north, to where there are plenty of empty homes available. My constituents want to live and work in Bradford. They want a decent home and a decent pay packet. Far too many of them, alas, now have neither.
Everybody but the Government sees that spending much more on investing in building new homes and improving older homes makes good sense. It gives people better homes and it provides work directly for builders, plumbers and electricians, and for others indirectly—for example, all those who work in providing building supplies and materials. Already, in Bradford there is concern that when the building programme starts, there will be serious skill shortages, which will hold back progress.
Tonight, as thousands of my constituents spend another night in overcrowded, cold, damp and dingy homes, I hope that the Minister will give those people some hope. I hope that he will engage in a genuine debate and seriously address the issues that I have raised regarding the housing crisis now gripping Bradford.
I began by referring to an excellent series of articles in the Telegraph and Argus. The editorial coming at the end of that series said :
If Bradford makes about £8 million in a year by selling council houses, land and other assets, it should be allowed to spend the lot building new houses—not restricted to just 20 per cent. of it per year.
Surely this would be one way of injecting the local economy with funds, creating much-needed work for the construction industry. Bradford urgently requires new houses, and the updating of several thousand pre-1919 properties.
Lastly, thousands of houses in the private sector need to be improved and modernised. Unless they are, they will quickly be degenerating into slums. If that happens Bradford's crisis will be even worse, requiring vastly much more money than is the case at present.
Surely, cutting improvement grants back to the bone is false economy: whatever short-term savings on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement are made now will only cause much greater long-term expense in the future.
That is the authentic voice of concern about the housing crisis in Bradford.
I ask the Minister, rather than giving a litany of the shortcomings of the last Labour Government, which is the predeliction of so many Conservative Ministers when replying to debates such as this, to address himself to the

problems of the past and the challenge of the future. I hope that he will have something positive to say, and will be able to give my constituents and the other citizens of Bradford who are now worried and desperately anxious about their housing conditions, some hope of better things to come.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for initiating the debate on housing in Bradford as it provides me with an opportunity to outline the housing policy of the Government as it applies in an inner-city authority such as Bradford. I am glad to have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech; I am equally glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who are showing their characteristic interest in housing matters in the area.
We are well aware of the housing problems in Bradford; they have not sprung up overnight; neither have they sprung up since 1979. We have annual housing investment programme meetings between our Yorkshire and Humberside regional office and the city council. My Department's Estate Action team has visited Bradford no fewer than six times in the last 18 months. I went to Bradford in March 1986. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), visited the city on 12 November and 14 December 1986. Alas, only ill-health has prevented him from being here tonight to answer the debate. I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery so that he can take his accustomed place at the Dispatch Box answering Adjournment debates such as this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also recently visited Bradford.
The hon. Gentleman made one very interesting suggestion that we should look, root and branch, at the way in which we fund housing in the public sector. That is a massive topic and is not suitable, in any great detail, for discussion in an Adjournment debate, but the hon Gentleman has made some interesting points. The way that we respond depends on our view of the future role of councils in the provision of housing.
That having been said, in the short term I do not think that there will be much change in the next few years. I do not think that we could reform the way in which local authority housing is funded so that, instead of being limited, for example, in the amount that they can spend each year they would be able to plan programmes over a period of years. We recognise how important it is that local authorities should run their capital programmes efficiently and cost-effectively, but nonetheless the management of the economy and the control of public expenditure—something that we hear a lot about from the Opposition Front Bench—depend on the Government being able to review the position and take the most appropriate action on capital expenditure, on matters such as housing, on a year-to-year basis.
Capital expenditure on housing is a large part of the total capital expenditure of local authorities and a significant proportion of total public expenditure. It would be difficult, under the present system, to commit the Government, more than about a year in advance, to a view about how much can be spent on housing in a given year at any one time. That is a superficial glance at the interesting topic that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is of general interest.
I shall turn now to the funding of housing and housing development in the country and in Bradford. Nationally, we have increased — despite the impression that Opposition Members would give us — the gross provision for local authority housing capital expenditure by £200 million in the current year to £2,532 million—an increase of 9 per cent.
On 7 November 1986 I announced a further increase in the provision of £390 million up to a total of £2,922 million for 1987–88—an increase of 15 per cent. in provision for housing. I also announced that allocations through Estate Action—what used to be known as the urban housing renewal unit—would be increased from £50 million in the current year to £75 million next year. Some significant investment through Estate Action has and will be flowing into Bradford, thanks to the Government's action. There will be a reserve allocation of some £14 million for authorities with special difficulties implementing housing defects legislation — a matter which has not been the subject of much discussion today.
Bradford has done relatively well out of the housing investment programme allocation recently. For 1987–88, its HIP allocation is £12·903 million of the initial resources available for allocation in Yorkshire and Humberside. That is 11·6 per cent. of the region's allocation, which is an increase on its share this year. That is some recognition of its problems.
Bradford also has its share of capital receipts. I estimate that about £5 million should be available. Bradford could therefore have a programme of £18 million or a little more in the coming year.
Bradford's share of the region's allocation has been well in excess of that indicated by the generalised needs index, on which many of our calculations are based. It could, however, show more interest in applications for urban development grant, which can be used for housing. I do not think that Bradford has been as forthcoming as other northern Labour-controlled authorities which have been keen on urban development grant, sometimes to solve certain housing needs.
The hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North have many minority communities with larger than average families. In ideal circumstances, they would have a four or five bedroom house. Other Labour-controlled authorities in the north have encouraged development with private developers using urban development grant to provide housing for such people. That is an important trend.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) talked of low house values in Bradford, which are a problem. Urban development grant can be used to make it worth while for private developers to develop. Bradford's Labour-controlled council has occasionally not been very enthusiastic about that, but Sloane square in the hon. Gentleman's constituency shows the go-ahead nature of the scheme and the Government's determination to do something about inner-city housing.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When used well, urban development grant can bridge the gap between profitability and impracticability.
The visits by Estate Action have produced substantial benefits for Bradford. The Department's priority estate project consultants are working closely with Bradford and establishing how they can help with housing management.
The picture is not as bleak as the hon. Member for Bradford, West implied. When I was in Bradford last March, I announced approval of a package of measures at the Holmewood B estate involving the establishment of a local estate office and an additional HIP allocation of £1·2 million in this year alone for new doors, windows, heating systems and an external insulation system for the walk-up blocks of flats. We also approved a community refurbishment scheme to improve the environment of the estate, involving the expenditure of about £685,000 from the urban programme and £855,000 from the Manpower Services Commission's community programme. We are employing estate-based persons to do up the estates in which they live, a concept that I think we would all consider to be thoroughly agreeable. A high proportion of those working at the Holmewood estate have been recruited from it. That shows how we can begin to target resources on problem areas and improve the employment picture in the area as well. The Government are determined to try to continue implementing that approach, the fruits of which can be seen already. We have tried to create job opportunities through the community refurbishment scheme and there has been a noticeable decrease already in the number of tenants who wish to transfer away from the estate. This form of intensive management is the way in which to turn estates around.
In December, I approved two further schemes at the Hutson street estate and the Woodhouse estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. These schemes involve an additional HIP allocation amounting to £1·2 million in the current year for environmental and security works and new windows. Of the £50 million of expenditure through estate action nationally in 1986–87, no less than 30 per cent. has been directed to the improvement of security for those living in large estates of the sort to which I have referred.
The Woodhouse scheme involves the opening of a local housing management office on the estate, which is something that should be welcomed widely.

Mr. Gary Waller: In the past, areas such as Bradford and Keighley have not been well served by the building of massive impersonal estates. With the assistance of the sort of money that is flowing for the Woodhouse estate, and through co-operation between the local authority, the police and the tenants, who have formed their own groups, there is a feeling among the tenants that they have a stake in the community and that co-operation bodes well for the future.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. I think that there is all-party agreement that none of us wants to see any more of these large estates built again. That makes me so chary of suggestions and requests for large sums to be expended to solve overnight, as it were, the problems of a particular city. That approach is mistaken. The approach that we wish to take through estate action is the best one. I say that because it is based on the community, related to the community and involves the community, and that is critical.

Mr. Madden: It is right that none of us wants to see a return to the system building of the 1960s and 1970s. Does


the Minister accept, however, the population projections which I gave in my opening remarks? If he does, how are we to provide decent homes for the many who will be seeking them in future? We must take into account also the many thousands who are now living in urgent housing need. There are demands for enormous sums to be expended, but that does not mean necessarily a return to system building. It means instead a major programme of housebuilding and home improvement.

Mr. Patten: We recognise the need to help Bradford city, and I have referred to the dilapidated and rundown estates that went wrong. It would be wrong for me to attribute blame to any one political party. Governments and councils of all political parties must share the blame.
I have the great disadvantage of knowing a little about population projections. I am bound to say that I used to give rather good lectures on the subject at the university

of Oxford. Few of the projections of population increases or decreases of even 10 or 15 years have been correct because of the mobility of the society in which we live. I do not believe that we can have firmly based projections of the population of Bradford or anywhere else in the year 2000. At the same time, I recognise that Bradford's population is increasing.
This has been a rather lively debate by normal Adjournment standards and I must tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to get well soon and return to enjoy debates of this sort on the Adjournment. We have had a useful discussion, but it is unfortunate that I have not had the chance to list the many schemes that we have funded, or will fund, in our attempts constructively to help Bradford with the housing problems that it faces.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.